Relax the IANA registry policies

[seanturner]

While discussing draft-whyte-qsh-tls12 at the ’15 Fall Interim, it was noted that the Extension Type registry and the two-related EC registries require are IETF Consensus (now called IETF Review) before an assignment can be made (modulo the early assignment process); IETF Review requires an RFC that has progressed through the IESG as AD-Sponsored or IETF WG Documents. This path is not always an easy one to navigate and it’s an especially onerous path if you’re just looking to do some experimentation and some would argue this has led to some implementers quietly squatting in the registry space. So would it make sense to change these registries to be more in-line with some of other registries that allow for easier registrations for experimental use, e.g.,

TLS HashAlgorithm Registry:
0-63: Standards Action. 64-223: Specification Required. 224-255: Reserved for Private Use

[yoavnir]

Like this?
#13