Re: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-certificate-compression-02.txt

[Sean Turner <[e-mail]>]

> On Feb 5, 2018, at 13:32, Victor Vasiliev <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 9:25 AM, Sean Turner <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> > On Jan 26, 2018, at 05:26, Alessandro Ghedini <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Me and Victor would like to ask for early codepoints assignment again, if you
> > think we are ready now.
> 
> This now on the chair’s list of things to do.  It’s been a week and nobody has complained so I’m thinking the draft is on the right track.   Got one question before we start the RFC7120-dictated early code point assignment dance:
> 
> Q. What’s the plan for the dictionary?  Is a field going to be included later to indicate which one is in use, or is the dictionary going to be linked to the extension number and a new one will be minted when the dictionary is updated?
> 
> The plan is to allocate a new algorithm codepoint for each (compression method, dictionary) tuple.  I don't want to decouple them, because it turns out that for different algorithms the dictionary can be supplied in different ways, and thus the actual content for the dictionary may vary.
> 
> (I'll address the nits a little bit later)

I can live with this approach because it’s better than minting a new extension every time.  But just for the record then the code points we’re looking to assign now are “no dictionary”.

spt