On 10/23/2017 12:50 PM, Joseph Salowey wrote:
> ekr proposed a PR (#47) for draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates that
> clarified the specification required rules to include Internet Drafts.
>
> I believe this is not the intent and we should close the issue.
>
> I think the intent of specification required is to allow a community
> that needs a code point to make a specification available in a public
> location that is relevant to that community. I don't think an an I-D
> would be appropriate in most cases.
>
I'm inclined to agree, given that something with an explicit expiration
data cannot be considered "stable".
(There's also a bit of a circular dependency in that the allocation
would have to point to a preexisting I-D version that could not then be
updated to refer to the allocated value, though I don't expect that to
actually give anyone much pause.)
-Ben
___
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
