We aren't shipping it yet, but have planned to use the RFC 2459 OID,
as we haven't been following X9 that closely. We could potentially
support both uses, but rather not, especially for VPN.
Of course, I'm not all that hot on the use of DH to begin with,
since the primary rational seems to be intellectual property-related
rather than technical.
Bob
"Jim Schaad (Exchange)" <jimsch(_at_)EXCHANGE(_dot_)MICROSOFT(_dot_)com>
08/06/99 02:34PM >>>
I would object to changing this. I have code which has shipped and uses
these OIDs.
jim
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Farrell [mailto:afarrell(_at_)baltimore(_dot_)ie]
Sent: Friday, July 30, 1999 6:22 AM
To: ietf-pkix(_at_)imc(_dot_)org; ietf-smime(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: X9.42 and RFC2459 inconsistency?
I wrote:
Cool (and a welcome gesture towards fixing broken stuff). So why do we
use their OID?
Sine there's been a deafing silence on this topic, I have two further
questions:
(1) Are there any deployed codebases which would object to changing the
Diffie-Hellman OID in rfc2459 to reflect the fact that it has different
semantics than in X9.42?
I know that John Pawling has stated that Van Dyke's S/MIME Freeware
Library has no issues, and as far as I know Microsoft haven't shipped
anything with Diffie-Hellman, so that S/MIME would appear to be in the
clear on this.
(2) Are there any other groups that profile 2459 that we should ask
about this?.
Andrew