On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Stephen Farrell
<stephen(_dot_)farrell(_at_)cs(_dot_)tcd(_dot_)ie> wrote:
On 30/03/15 20:29, Nico Williams wrote:
that
would effectively require having procedures for *early* IANA assignment
of IETF OID arcs to upcoming Internet-Drafts. As it is I don't think we
have procedures for that,
See RFC7120 and RFC7299 (as Russ pointed out on the trans list).
We have those procedures now.
There is still, however, no real issue to be dealt with here.
Agreed, these are just sequences of octets and at this point, IETF is
one of the very few places still using them. As long as the IETF does
not assign the same OID twice, it really makes no difference.
Renumbering is certainly to be avoided. We have been there with
X-Headers. Requiring renumbering just for the sake of taxonomic order
is silly. Pluto is still a damn planet and that really big dinosaur
with a long neck is still a Brontosaurus no matter what the academics
claim.
We might be making the situation worse however by insisting that IANA
issue OIDs to organizations rather than for projects. This is one of
the few instances where IANA is acting as a non-IETF registry on
behalf of the (now defunct) ITU-T.
If we had a registry for projects, people could take an OID arc for
their project. Use it in private space during development and then
transfer control to the IETF or W3C or OASIS or wherever if the
project turns into a standards track effort.