Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Transport parameter registry is too constraining for innovation (#3020)

Martin Thomson <> Tue, 22 October 2019 00:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46799120A97 for <>; Mon, 21 Oct 2019 17:44:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.382
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.382 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_24=1.618, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hJrd1BlcYxDr for <>; Mon, 21 Oct 2019 17:44:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B3DF3120A8E for <>; Mon, 21 Oct 2019 17:44:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1844F1C0225 for <>; Mon, 21 Oct 2019 17:44:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1571705084; bh=tMLN/maFhg8yrzznsIsurww+uP/ktMCouOe/bdLVeno=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=zu8NlOLDa/rvKiivPnWVMeuLfmvt0WhB/2ejIXmIpPwGVtaWuJEnZePk/nPEO0IiZ cxrcUev3Zcsbf9ExbPIGq2kH5jICMagoqBCUZ1GMuJLJco1Au9Mdnq20mjoq0dau4z etbY5/ah3xmYMh9RdFaGeTdXGqXNtmBo+tJ9rdww=
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2019 17:44:44 -0700
From: Martin Thomson <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3020/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Transport parameter registry is too constraining for innovation (#3020)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5dae50fc99a6_393c3fcdd76cd95c74884"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: martinthomson
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2019 00:44:46 -0000

I think that the RFC 6648 lessons need to be considered carefully here.  I think that it would be better to use a combination of random selection and provisional registration as a means of handling experiments.  Random selection means that we end up colliding with very low probability; provisional registration ensures that registrations are protected.  Making the private use space larger does neither.  I would prefer to instead remove the private use space completely.

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: