Re: [Curdle] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-schaad-curdle-oid-registry-02: (with COMMENT)

I think that "not allocated to IETF" would be better.

Russ

> On Jan 25, 2018, at 4:37 AM, Rob Stradling <rob.stradling@comodo.com> wrote:
> 
> On 24/01/18 23:53, Jim Schaad wrote:
>> Would adding the following lines be an adequate replacement?
>> 0 - 99  | Retained by Symantec | [This RFC]
>> 128+   | Retained by Symantec | [This RFC]
> 
> Symantec have also allocated a bunch of OIDs under the 1.3.101 arc to the TRANS WG, for use in 6962-bis.
> 
> Therefore, "Retained by Symantec" seems a bit misleading.  I think something along the lines of "Not allocated to CURDLE" would be more accurate.
> 
>> I think this is more in line with normality that having a list of "this value open for registration".
>> Jim
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Adam Roach [mailto:adam@nostrum.com]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2018 3:42 PM
>>> To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
>>> Cc: draft-schaad-curdle-oid-registry@ietf.org; Daniel Migault
>>> <daniel.migault@ericsson.com>; curdle-chairs@ietf.org;
>>> daniel.migault@ericsson.com; curdle@ietf.org
>>> Subject: Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-schaad-curdle-oid-registry-02:
>>> (with COMMENT)
>>> 
>>> Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
>>> draft-schaad-curdle-oid-registry-02: No Objection
>>> 
>>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email
>>> addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory
>>> paragraph, however.)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-schaad-curdle-oid-registry/
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> COMMENT:
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 
>>> I think it would be useful to include explicit entries in the initial IANA table
>>> indicating those values which are currently unassigned (i.e., add a range for
>>> 101-109 and 116-127.) For this use in particular, where overstepping the
>>> bounds of the allocation would impinge on codes retained by Symantec, this
>>> seems even more important than typical.
>>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Curdle mailing list
>> Curdle@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/curdle
> 
> -- 
> Rob Stradling
> Senior Research & Development Scientist
> COMODO - Creating Trust Online
> Office Tel: +44.(0)1274.730505
> Office Fax: +44.(0)1274.730909
> www.comodo.com
> 
> COMODO CA Limited, Registered in England No. 04058690
> Registered Office:
>  3rd Floor, 26 Office Village, Exchange Quay,
>  Trafford Road, Salford, Manchester M5 3EQ
> 
> This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.  If you have received this email in error please notify the sender by replying to the e-mail containing this attachment. Replies to this email may be monitored by COMODO for operational or business reasons. Whilst every endeavour is taken to ensure that e-mails are free from viruses, no liability can be accepted and the recipient is requested to use their own virus checking software.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Curdle mailing list
> Curdle@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/curdle