> I'd be opposed to this last option without IANA/IETF being on board. By
> doing so
we are effectively no longer compliant with IETF TLS since we're using
certain
codepoints and version numbers to mean things that IETF/IANA have no
visibility
of, i.e. we would be doing exactly what Rich was worried about. I don't see
IANA/IETF doing this anytime soon.
For the most part, getting IANA on board requires someone in authority email to
[email protected] asking for code points and pointing to their spec.
