Re: [Tls-reg-review] Temporary allocation of values for TLS extensions

Two comments about this:
The extensionType registry ([1]) is expressed in decimal rather than hex, so the allocation should be 64251-65279 rather than 0xFAFB-0xFEFF.
We don’t generally set the columns for reserved ranges, like the private-use

Otherwise, I’m not sure if we need a distinction between private-use and experimental use. For interoperability, they’re the same: you can’t count on this value to mean the same thing to your implementation and the peer implementation absent some other handshake mechanism.  That one may be long term while the other should be short-term is largely aspirational.

But extensionType is hardly a scarce resource, so I’m fine with allocating this range.

Yoav

[1] https://www.iana.org/assignments/tls-extensiontype-values/tls-extensiontype-values.xhtml#tls-extensiontype-values-1

> On 27 Jun 2020, at 2:00, Joseph Salowey <joe@salowey.net> wrote:
> 
> Attached is a proposal for the temporary allocation of values for TLS extensions.  This is intended to allow for implementation experiments during the development of a TLS extension.  This is to address the problem that the draft may not yet be stabilized enough for a formal allocation.  
> 
> Let us know what you think.  
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Joe
> <draft-wood-tls-experimental-extensions.txt>_______________________________________________
> tls-reg-review mailing list
> tls-reg-review@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls-reg-review