Hi Leif, all,
On 3/28/15 10:14 AM, Leif Johansson wrote:
27 mar 2015 kl. 18:43 skrev Massimiliano Pala <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>:
Hi Rob, all,
last consideration about the I-D - there are a bunch of OID values
that are used throughout the document that are using PRIVATE (Google)
OIDs in the document - this is *completely wrong*! Private OIDs
should not be used for I-Ds.
sais who?
Well, in this case, until we have an official position from IETF, me. I
might be wrong, but it is evident that this is not a standard approach
followed as common practice in the past.
However, my concerns are based on organizational and engineering
considerations.
First of all, I have not seen this approach taken anywhere else - raw
values within the document. We defined many OIDs in the past in the
security area, and I do not recall this approach to ever been taken or
allowed (with exceptions, I agree, but very limited and definitely not
in recent years).
Second, I think that allowing the use of OIDs from different sub-trees
for extending PKIX protocols and structures is not a good idea - we have
a tree structure for a reason: be able to group together what belong
together. Otherwise, let's just use random numbers, why bothering with a
structure for OIDs?
Third, I have my concerns in adopting OIDs from a private sub-tree given
the decentralized nature of the OIDs (what is the ownership of OIDs in a
private sub-branch?)
I hope this clarifies my position.
Cheers,
Max
_______________________________________________
Trans mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
