Well Syntlogo has an OID since a few years. This is not the case as you pointed out.
You correctly pointed out that to use just the first OID found is not correct, but if you look at the assigned ODI numbers (a few tenth of thousand) you will notice that they are a small fraction of all installed LDAP servers (and is good so). So, between the wrong use of an OID and the use of a "private" one, I prefer the latter. Yes, I'm looking for your support: I need to understand if it is a useful thing or I may forget it immediately. Best regards Giovanni -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Kurt D. Zeilenga [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 15. Juni 2006 17:37 An: Giovanni Baruzzi Cc: 'kalyanasundaram S'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ldap@umich.edu Betreff: Re: [ldap] AW: Re: AW: Re: Problems with extension.schema At 07:33 AM 6/15/2006, Giovanni Baruzzi wrote: >This is exactly the reason that motivated me to think: it would be >advisable to reserve a "private" OID that anybody can use without need >to apply for one. >Sure, the OID space is theoretically unlimited and it does cost >nothing, but a private OID would be easier. > >Anybody would support my idea? I note that you only need your support for your idea. That is, you need no support from others to delegate an OID under your arc for this purpose. Kurt --- You are currently subscribed to ldap@umich.edu as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE as the SUBJECT of the message.
