[TLS] Re: [IANA #1419884] expert review for draft-ietf-tls-dtls-rrc (tls-extensiontype-values)

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 8:16 AM Salz, Rich <rsalz=
[e-mail]> wrote:

> The downside of Standards Action is that it makes experimentation much
> more difficult. (Yes, you could address that by setting aside a range for
> experimentation.) But is the concern really all that great? In order for it
> to materially affect the operation of the Internet, multiple parties would
> have to implement and enable it.
>
>
>
> What is the real concern about someone defining a whole new sub-protocol
> for DTLS?  My view is “so what” If it works, and it’s better (by some
> metric(s)), great. If it fails, it’s only a subset of users of one
> implementation that will feel the affects, until it’s disabled.
>
>
>
> Note that expert review requires an available specification, and all other
> TLS registries are expert review. Is this one really all that special?
> Perhaps it’s worth having an explicit consensus call around this issue, as
> opposed to a change made in response to a WGLC review.
>

I agree with Thomas that adding new mechanisms to RRC without careful
review is probably a bad idea, but I concur with Rich that the right way to
enforce this is not with restricting access to the code point space. Let's
do what we've done elsewhere and mark these RECOMMEND=N

-Ekr


> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>