Ok, but if we do that we need to be careful with the standard. Things like BLOBLISTT_U_BOOT_VIDEO dont feel U-Boot specific.
The idea behind the Transfer List tag allocation policy is low friction allocation and organically emerging standards. You're not supposed to need to have big up-front debates about how exactly e.g. a video info descriptor should look like or whether it can be shared with other projects. Projects are just supposed to add what they need in the moment, in whatever format they prefer, and can call it something specific to that project to begin with (e.g. U_BOOT_VIDEO).
Then, later, if other projects feel that this is a good format that would be worthwhile to reuse, they can just start using it. Just because it says U_BOOT or the ID number is close to the number for other U-Boot descriptors doesn't mean that it's not appropriate to be used anywhere else as long as the same structure with the same meaning makes sense there. If we eventually find that a bunch of different projects are all using this tag and it has become a de facto standard, we can also change the name to drop the U_BOOT (or different projects can even use different names for the same thing, that doesn't really matter as long as the ID and format matches). Or, if U-Boot eventually finds that this structure doesn't work well for them anymore they can just allocate a new U_BOOT_VIDEO2 and stop using the old one (or rename the old one to U_BOOT_VIDEO_DEPRECATED and call a new ID with a new format U_BOOT_VIDEO).
Basically, the idea here is that upfront "perfect" design by committee tends to not work well for these things anyway and the friction it adds would be too much of a barrier to adoption. So it's better to not even try, just let everyone allocate what they want, and then later see what tends to work out well in practice and where there are opportunities for tag sharing between projects.