[Top] [All Lists]

Re: consisten use of top-level oid branch name joint-iso-itu-t(2)

2008-12-24 15:40:10

        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

Alfred � <ah(_at_)tr-sys(_dot_)de>
turners(_at_)ieca(_dot_)com, ietf-pkix(_at_)imc(_dot_)org, 
Re: consisten use of top-level oid branch name joint-iso-itu-t(2)


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 

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but instead use the outdated/legacy name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,


   Prof John Larmouth
   Larmouth T&PDS Ltd
   (Training and Protocol Design Services Ltd)
   1 Blueberry Road 
   WA14 3LS 
   Tel: +44 161 928 1605