In message <6f9a7c53-f40f-4794-bf1a-f59eb1db6d4b@default> on Wed, 14 Mar 2018 16:40:24 -0700 (PDT), Paul Dale <[email protected]> said:
paul.dale> > We should have OID's for the things we implement paul.dale> paul.dale> Sounds like a policy :) paul.dale> Vote time? Not sure if there's a need for a vote. I'll just wait for the PR ;-) Thing is, we probably have no need for the OIDs in the library, just the names, as long as they don't have to be included in any DER stuff we generate or parse. Each name becomes an object and a NID anyway, and that's all we need internally. So in some cases, OIDs are more "nice to have" than useful, although they might become useful in the future, so it's never wrong to include the actual official OIDs when they're available. So can I assume there's a PR coming up? Policy wise, I think that's what it takes, plus the approval. Cheers, Richard -- Richard Levitte [email protected] OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org/~levitte/ _______________________________________________ openssl-project mailing list [email protected] https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project
