>> 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.
’someone in authority’ here means the author of the spec who is asking for
code points?
Yes. Or someone involved with the spec.
