John:
This draft is interesting and useful for some purposes, but I
don't see how it addresses the case where a high-level arc (beyond the
control of the development organization) is renamed. Since that's
precisely the case we are discussing here (although the change took place
quite a while ago and it's reasonable to expect people to adjust), it
doesn't actually seem to help us. Am I missing something?
Also, unless I have missed something, there are only three
top-level arcs defined for OID's and they all now have names.
Tom Gindin
John Larmouth <j(_dot_)larmouth(_at_)btinternet(_dot_)com>
Sent by: owner-ietf-pkix(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org
12/22/2008 10:48 AM
Please respond to
j(_dot_)larmouth(_at_)btinternet(_dot_)com
To
Alfred � <ah(_at_)tr-sys(_dot_)de>
cc
turners(_at_)ieca(_dot_)com, ietf-pkix(_at_)imc(_dot_)org,
ietf-smime(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
Subject
Re: consisten use of top-level oid branch name joint-iso-itu-t(2)
Alfred,
The synonyms were introduced some time ago, and, indeed, the names are
non-normative, and may not even be unambiguous. Only the numbers matter
in an OID in an encoding.
However, the recent introduction of Unicode labels, as normative and
unambigous names gives a new naming scheme to the (same) OID tree that
enables names (Unicode labels) to be used in machine communication if
desired. The ASN.1 type is called OID_IRI and provides for node
identification using Unicode labels. Unicode labels with names similar to
the old ASCII names have been assigned for many of the top-level arcs, and
more will be added over time.
The OID_IRI type is related to (but not dependent on) the application for
an "oid" IRI scheme, but for consistency this is desired. See I-D
draft-larmouth-oid-iri-00.
John L
Alfred � wrote:
Folks / to whom it concerns,
during recent reviews of active I-Ds containing ASN.1 related
to the X.500 framework, I found that a couple of these do not
consistently employ the revised name of the top-level OID branch
joint-iso-itu-t(2) ,
but instead use the outdated/legacy name
joint-iso-ccitt(2) .
Some drafts use a mix of both names.
I suggest that the modern version joint-iso-itu-t(2) be used
consistently within all new drafts / draft versions, unless
intentionally and explicitely for historical evidence reference
has to be made to the old name.
Kind regards,
Alfred.
--
Prof John Larmouth
Larmouth T&PDS Ltd
(Training and Protocol Design Services Ltd)
1 Blueberry Road
Bowdon
j(_dot_)larmouth(_at_)btinternet(_dot_)com
Altrincham
Cheshire
WA14 3LS
England
Tel: +44 161 928 1605