Update

[Paul Yang]

> On May 22, 2019, at 10:16, Salz, Rich <rsalz at akamai.com> wrote:
> 
>>> 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 tls-registry at iana.org 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.

Hmmm, that would be someone involved in GM/T 0024...

>