Re: [TLS] RFC8447bis

2021-08-19 Thread Martin Thomson
On Thu, Aug 19, 2021, at 12:30, Sean Turner wrote: > The primary reason we are proposing this approach is that it seemed to > us to be a bit more explicit about the numbers in this space being part > of an experiment. The added benefit here is that we are in some sense > greasing the bits too.

Re: [TLS] RFC8447bis

2021-08-19 Thread Salz, Rich
> > Experiments, particularly large-scale ones, turn into deployments. Consequently the difference between "an experiment" and "a standard" is the date at which you look. See also RFC 6648. >That is, when you mark this space out, you are saying that it's special. > People might try t

Re: [TLS] RFC8447bis

2021-08-19 Thread Martin Thomson
On Thu, Aug 19, 2021, at 23:14, Salz, Rich wrote: > I understand this concern. I am sympathetic to it. But perhaps > large-scale experiments on the whole Internet aren't the scope here? > Those kinds of things seem to ask for an early allocation. I am > thinking, in particular, of some GOST/TLS

Re: [TLS] RFC8447bis

2021-08-19 Thread David Benjamin
I agree with Martin. At the end of the day, a collision between IANA and a large-scale experiment isn't significantly more interesting than a collision between two large-scale experiments. They will still cause interop problems. There isn't really any collision benefit to blocking off a range. If