Subject: [TLS] Closing PR#47 on draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates

From: Joseph Salowey <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 10:50:23 -0700

ekr proposed a PR (#47) for  draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates that
clarified the specification required rules to include Internet Drafts.

I believe this is not the intent and we should close the issue.

I think the intent of specification required is to allow a community that
needs a code point to make a specification available in a public location
that is relevant to that community. I don't think an an I-D would be
appropriate in most cases.

Cheers,

Joe

---

From: Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 16:45:55 -0500

On 10/23/2017 12:50 PM, Joseph Salowey wrote:
> I think the intent of specification required is to allow a community
> that needs a code point to make a specification available in a public
> location that is relevant to that community. I don't think an an I-D
> would be appropriate in most cases.
>

I'm inclined to agree, given that something with an explicit expiration
data cannot be considered "stable".

(There's also a bit of a circular dependency in that the allocation
would have to point to a preexisting I-D version that could not then be
updated to refer to the allocated value, though I don't expect that to
actually give anyone much pause.)

-Ben