IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Use of private OIDs in WG (standard-track) documents

Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com> Sat, 28 March 2015 22:08 UTC

Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D738D1A9057 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 28 Mar 2015 15:08:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xAcu2XodlL_s for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 28 Mar 2015 15:08:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qg0-x229.google.com (mail-qg0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 653571A8A4F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 28 Mar 2015 15:08:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qgep97 with SMTP id p97so161004671qge.1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 28 Mar 2015 15:08:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=9U+xe3WM6loSaWqEDx0XXBR7JfPK00ITI2AbfDKliJA=; b=z32+z2Q9u3sYDRXUfsRnIDzdemyVo9bRvzTvMTHTwoYU4KkQlJd/vU+XRb7+FNtoBB Z8XipfNzZoPhEWXo2APaIgkeSsBAQ0xV8zCaa877fX5GvIioeqPP7hjA/UoHWrvUq6M6 8cMK/vXF7CRmOc7YBG/5hA48MS0bnl6lIeE6PlnUSARMY/QZg7oEv0F1c2PeukaHVZUR DvNMhC53WBC6lvfe4Wd5HF0gtX97/zEnq3Fu7sBnDW8NAsRld5w3UJZh27wgR2CfIL8h CyhHzo9f93kUM23/LUmZ3DpB0cHQdLOzgDc8q9EXbH2xONNMHVb1B+vw3pQc7SHDXkC4 ljzg==
X-Received: by 10.55.22.213 with SMTP id 82mr51606040qkw.103.1427580502668; Sat, 28 Mar 2015 15:08:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.119.61.78] (mobile-107-107-57-204.mycingular.net. [107.107.57.204]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id 144sm4445989qhx.45.2015.03.28.15.08.20 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 28 Mar 2015 15:08:21 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: Use of private OIDs in WG (standard-track) documents
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (12B436)
In-Reply-To: <20150328211906.GI17637@mournblade.imrryr.org>
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2015 18:08:19 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <0E97DD7D-AC17-4888-8848-BB054E8CCE72@gmail.com>
References: <55163324.6030504@openca.org> <20150328211906.GI17637@mournblade.imrryr.org>
To: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/8zRtdxl8cJ3pGFe5FQ472QEALBg>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2015 22:08:25 -0000

Victor eve understates the case

Ietf could assign oids in pretty much any space it likes and get away with it. Only recourse would be a lawsuit and heaven help the lawyer trying to draft a claim

All the registries do is to help avoid collisions. These are really just numbers we have a process for avoiding double issue of

Sent from my difference engine


> On Mar 28, 2015, at 17:19, Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org> wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:50:44PM -0500, Massimiliano Pala wrote:
>> 
>> I do not really feel
>> comfortable adopting OIDs that are under the control of a single
>> organization. Would this be a first case ?
> 
> I don't see any possibility of "control" of a leaf OID once it is
> assigned.  
> 
> All that organizations control s the issuing of new OIDS under
> particular prefixes, and their prerogative is basically limited to
> avoiding collisions with other people assigning OIDs under their
> respective prefixes.  Once you publish an OID as fit for a particular
> purpose, you cannot take it back.
> 
> So I see no risk here.  MIT's and Microsoft's OIDS are used in
> Kerberos, for example.  This has not and cannot cause any problems.
> 
> -- 
>    Viktor.
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email