Re: [TLS] WG last call of draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-05

[Ilari Liusvaara <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 02:08:28PM -0800, Joseph Salowey wrote:
> Reserving large portions of other protocols number spaces is not a good way
> to do things.   This will quickly become unworkable if other protocols
> decide to do the same thing.  This type of behavior needs to be
> discouraged.  There is no guarantee that the multiplexing scheme prompting
> this registration request will work with TLS 1.3 or any future version of
> TLS.

Well, outside of some very exotic extensions (none are defined to date,
and I'm having problems even imagining what such things would actually
do), it would work in TLS 1.3 Editor's Draft (since it only ever uses
21, 22 and 23[1]).

Future versions of TLS are another matter...

And even if there was some extension to omit the version from record
header, it would still work (the demuxer would however need to be
aware of that extension).

 
[1] For comparision, TLS 1.2 uses 21-23 and also 20 and in presence of
certain (infamous) extension, 24.


-Ilari