Hi Philip,
were those OIDs that for PKCS from RSA ? Is there any other example of
this happening
in the last 5/10yrs ? I think that allowing this as a common practice is
a bit dangerous.
Is this the official position of IETF ?
BTW, I think that once the sub-tree of the OID is assigned to the
company, that is in
complete control of that company - that is why we have the private OIDs
in the first
place.
If this is a practice that IETF should discourage, should we have a
clear policy written
somewhere that we can all adhere to ?
I would like to know the official IETF position on this issue.
Cheers,
Max
On 3/28/15 12:42 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 12:50 AM, Massimiliano Pala
<director(_at_)openca(_dot_)org> wrote:
Hello IETF,
small question: is it allowed to use private OIDs (i.e., subtree of
1.3.6.1.4.1.XXXX.) in WG documents that are on standard track ? I am asking
because in the TRANS wg, that is what is happening and I do not really feel
comfortable adopting OIDs that are under the control of a single
organization. Would this be a first case ?
Once the OID is assigned, it is out of control of the assigner. So it
is not a problem. We have used RSA labs OIDs from the start.
We have in the past had many discussions on this and various solutions
proposed. One being to set up an OID for a specific project and hand
that over to the IETF together with the spec.
But at the end of the day, renumbering code points in existing specs
only introduces divergence and error. It is to be avoided.