Re: [Cbor] Review draft-bormann-cbor-tags-oid-07

[Sean Leonard <[e-mail]>]

On 7/3/2020 3:47 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> Hi Jim,
>
> thank you for this flash override review :-)
>
>> On 2020-07-03, at 20:39, Jim Schaad <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> * Section 2 - What is a "primary integer"?  Is this one that has not yet
>> gone to high school?
> I have no idea.  ASN.1 term?  Ah right, X.660.  Since arcs can be identified both by its actual integer value and (not necessarily unambiguous) secondary identifiers, the integer value is called “primary” integer value.  Fixed this by adding explanation and getting rid of the “primary” elsewhere.

On this point specifically:

X.660 (2011) defines:

3.5.13 primary integer value: A primary value of type integer used to 
unambiguously identify an arc of the
international object identifier tree.
NOTE – An arc of the international object identifier tree has precisely 
one primary integer value, apart from long arcs, which
have only Unicode labels.

When I wrote the draft, I used that term specifically since it was 
defined in X.660. I think we should continue to use "primary integer 
value" as defined in X.660 but as Carsten said, I am okay with the term 
only being used once and thereafter referring to it as a simpler term.

To my knowledge, OIDs represented in X.660 string formats such as IRIs 
simply have not taken off for purposes of interchange, and when used in 
technical documentation, the {iso(1) identified-organization(3) ... } 
style (which is X.680, or X.660) or dotted-decimal OID style seem to 
predominate.

The most authoritative dotted-decimal OID style definition that I could 
find is in the LDAP specs, namely <numericoid> in RFC 4512. X.680 (2015) 
defines dotted-decimal style as well, see XMLObjectIdentifierValue 
(Section 32.3; see https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-X.680-201508-I/en), but 
the X.680 definition is unwieldy and allows for the names to appear in 
the identifiers as well.

-Sean