Subject: Reserved extension ids

From: Daniel Sommermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 09:09:23 -0700

As of right now, the method for negotiating extensions is unspecified. 
During the interim we discussed the possibility of using IANA to reserve 
extensions. Will this become part of the spec? I think it may be a good 
idea to formally segment the ID space, even if we leave out the IANA 
details. For instance, the first 1/2 to 3/4 of the setting ID space is 
reserved for future RFCs, and the last 1/2 to 1/4 is reserved for 
experimental/ephemeral use. The same consideration for frame identifiers 
could be useful, although I recognize that's a constrained space.

Daniel

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 09:53:04 -0700

On 13 June 2014 09:09, Daniel Sommermann <[email-masked]> wrote:
> extensions. Will this become part of the spec? I think it may be a good idea
> to formally segment the ID space, even if we leave out the IANA details. For
> instance, the first 1/2 to 3/4 of the setting ID space is reserved for
> future RFCs, and the last 1/2 to 1/4 is reserved for experimental/ephemeral
> use. The same consideration for frame identifiers could be useful, although
> I recognize that's a constrained space.

Let me know if this is OK: https://http2.github.io/http2-spec/#iana

This establishes IANA registries for frame types, settings and error
codes.  They have different rules, but those rules follow your
recommendation pretty closely.

I'll note however that future RFCs are not given special status over
other documents, other than being a slightly easier way to get frame
types, given the selected registration rules.

---

From: Daniel Sommermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 10:06:30 -0700

On 06/13/2014 09:53 AM, Martin Thomson wrote:
> Let me know if this is OK: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=https://http2.github.io/http2-spec/%23iana&k=ZVNjlDMF0FElm4dQtryO4A%3D%3D%0A&r=IrwMSGpW3PFDVcAQTcJK0g%3D%3D%0A&m=9XG4svcqkl09wVxf4d8yR84zdCuTAyZ8OwnthxpJOLI%3D%0A&s=8f7f42a799f12fb39f7c5d77844c693ca7bef39ee93b058d05cfa23ffa7fe144
>

I completely missed this section, thanks. Everything in there looks 
reasonable to me.

> types, given the selected registration rules.

Makes sense.