Re: [TLS] extension number conflict

[Mike <mike-list at pobox.com>]

> > For a feature that will obviously be approved, shouldn't there
> > be a way to assign it a number sooner than RFC publication?
>
> I think it is *not* obvious that this feature will be exactly 
> the same (that is, interoperable with the -02 draft) in the final 
> TLS 1.2 RFC.

Ok, that's a fair argument.

> (But perhaps allocating one extension number for "private use"
> might make sense... )

Wouldn't that open up a can of worms?  The IANA lists extension
numbers 12 thru 34 as unassigned -- maybe we are supposed to use
one of those during development of the standard until the RFC is
published?  And once it is, the only code change is redefining a
constant.

Mike

_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
TLS at lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls