Re: [TLS] RFC8447bis

On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 5:09 PM Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net> wrote:

> I don't think that this approach is the best we could do.
>
> 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.
>
> In that light, why not use the entire unassigned space for experiments?  A
> registry policy that allowed allocations for experiments, but marked those
> entries as temporary (the word "provisional" is usual here) would suffice.
> Reclaiming these codepoints might be more challenging than the draft makes
> out; the expiration time you have in the draft is fine, though I expect
> that any dates will be roundly ignored if code is still shipping.
>
> The point of a registry is to avoid collisions and the interoperability
> failures that follow.  So I would also add that all new allocations
> (experiment or otherwise) should draw from the unassigned space at random,
> rather than sequentially.  That should minimize collisions up until the
> point where we have exhausted the space.
>
> I would also prefer to have no space reserved for private use (though a
> very small space is tolerable).
>
> (It shouldn't be a surprise, but I'm advocating for the same general
> approach that QUIC took.)
>

I agree with the bit about the unified space.

I'm a bit less sure about randomly versus sequentially, but I could go
either way. IIRC the QUIC thing leaned somewhat on the space being very big.

-Ekr

> On Wed, Aug 18, 2021, at 09:34, Christopher Wood wrote:
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > Based on discussing regarding draft-ietf-tls-hybrid-design during IETF
> > 111, it became clear that we need some mechanism to deal with
> > temporary, experimental codepoints for testing out new features. To
> > that end, Sean and Joe recently published this draft:
> >
> >    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-salowey-tls-rfc8447bis-00
> >
> > This document obsoletes RFC8447 and updates a number of other relevant
> > documents. The main changes in this document are:
> >
> > - Experimental codepoint policy and process
> > (
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-salowey-tls-rfc8447bis-00#section-17
> )
> > - Updated Recommended registry values
> > (
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-salowey-tls-rfc8447bis-00#section-5
> )
> >
> > Please review the document, especially if you have thoughts about the
> > experimental policy. Assuming there are no major objections, I'd like
> > to propose that we proceed with the proposal to get things started.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Chris
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > TLS mailing list
> > TLS@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> TLS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
>