Re: [e2md] Problem statement, Requirements and Use Cases

Aye, that's the question! I know of at least a couple of bodies looking
for SPN that would just like to use the terminal element - not the rest
of the OID string. Whether that ultimately makes sense or the overhead
of using the whole thing proves in I don't know.
One could even imagine different local conventions.  

Penn Pfautz
AT&T Access Management
+1-732-420-4962

-----Original Message-----
From: Sumanth Channabasappa [mailto:sumanth@cablelabs.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 3:45 PM
To: Cartwright, Kenneth; trutkowski@netmagic.com; PFAUTZ, PENN L
(ATTCORP)
Cc: drinks@ietf.org; E.164 To MetaData BOF discussion list
Subject: RE: [e2md] Problem statement, Requirements and Use Cases

When we speak about OIDs here, we are speaking of OIDs formed via the
IANA Enterprise Numbers, correct (1.3.6.1.4...)? If so, do we need an
extra string for all enterprises (1.3...) or can we just use the
enterprise number? And if we want a hierarchy, it can always be
constructed underneath the IANA Enterprise number, no?

- S

-----Original Message-----
From: drinks-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:drinks-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Cartwright, Kenneth
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 12:39 PM
To: trutkowski@netmagic.com; PFAUTZ, PENN L (ATTCORP)
Cc: drinks@ietf.org; E.164 To MetaData BOF discussion list
Subject: Re: [drinks] [e2md] Problem statement, Requirements and Use
Cases

As Penn wisely points out, this can be discussed in detail in the
appropriate forum at the appropriate time, however, ....

The ITUs OID looks like a good option.  It seems to meet the following
requirements/advantages:

1) It already exists; no need to invent and debate a new scheme,
approach, documentation set, etc.
2) It is hierarchical; organizations can optionally create sub-OIDs (or
sub trees) under their main OID if they need to.
3) The sub-identifiers under the main identifier can be opaque; they
need not have a known, or the same known, meaning to all parties that
may use/see them
4) There is an existing urn that _might_ be useful "urn:oid"
5) If the set of existing OIDs already allocated under one of the
existing OID trees (e.g. 1.3.6.1.4) are not appropriate then it seems
that an organization (e.g. IANA) can be formally delegated the
responsibility of dolling out (similar to the way that it doles out
Enterprise Numbers) the OIDs under a new OID tree.  IOW, the OID tree it
centrally managed, but the management of sub-trees can be delegated.
6) They are cleanly parseable by a computer or a human; their form is
standardized and well structured.

A disadvantage, however, is that ITU OIDs can theoretically be fairly
long (in contrast to the 4 characters that comprise a north american OCN
or SPID, or the handful of digits that comprise the IANA Enterprise
Number).  But it is not clear to me whether in practice, given our use
case, if they will ever be as long as they can theoretically be.  The
spec for our usage would just need to address this point.

http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/asn1/uuid.html
http://www.oid-info.com/#oid

Ken

-----Original Message-----
From: e2md-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:e2md-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Tony Rutkowski
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 11:52 AM
To: PFAUTZ, PENN L (ATTCORP)
Cc: E.164 To MetaData BOF discussion list
Subject: Re: [e2md] Problem statement, Requirements and Use Cases

On 5/19/2010 11:03 AM, PFAUTZ, PENN L (ATTCORP) wrote:
> Use RFC 3761 technology provide for the Carrier of Record for an E.164

> number (as defined in RFC 5067) to publish the mapping of that E.164 
> to a globally defined identifier, specifically an IANA Enterprise 
> Number as defined in RFC 2578.
>

Hi Penn,

Good choice.  However, the text needs tweaking to read:

   Use RFC 3761 technology to provide for the Carrier of
   Record for an E.164 number (as defined in RFC 5067) to
   publish the mapping of that E.164 number using an assigned
   Carrier of Record Object Identifier (OID)) such as an IANA
   Enterprise Number as defined in RFC 2578.  Ref. Rec.
   ITU-T Recs. X.660 and X.680.

The changes clarify what identifier is being specified and includes
reference to the authoritative OID standard.  It also allows for the
possibility of using other assigned OIDs for a Carrier of Record.
Although more than 35,000 Enterprise Numbers have been registered with
IANA, there are many carriers who have OIDs that were registered with
national authorities for Carrier of Record purposes.  As long as there
is a valid, globally unique OID, some flexibility should exist.

For example, ATT has the OID 1.3.6.1.4.74 from IANA's OID block, but it
also has 0.7.7223 that it uses for some services in Argentina.

best,
tony
_______________________________________________
e2md mailing list
e2md@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/e2md

This e-mail message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)and
may contain confidential and privileged information of Transaction
Network Services.
Any unauthorised review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.
If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by
reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.

_______________________________________________
drinks mailing list
drinks@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/drinks