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

[Massimiliano Pala <[e-mail]>]

Hi Philip,

were those OIDs that for PKCS from RSA ? Is there any other example of 
this happening
in the last 5/10yrs ? I think that allowing this as a common practice is 
a bit dangerous.
Is this the official position of IETF ?

BTW, I think that once the sub-tree of the OID is assigned to the 
company, that is in
complete control of that company - that is why we have the private OIDs 
in the first
place.

If this is a practice that IETF should discourage, should we have a 
clear policy written
somewhere that we can all adhere to ?

I would like to know the official IETF position on this issue.

Cheers,
Max

On 3/28/15 12:42 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 12:50 AM, Massimiliano Pala <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Hello IETF,
>>
>> small question: is it allowed to use private OIDs (i.e., subtree of
>> 1.3.6.1.4.1.XXXX.) in WG documents that are on standard track ? I am asking
>> because in the TRANS wg, that is what is happening and I do not really feel
>> comfortable adopting OIDs that are under the control of a single
>> organization. Would this be a first case ?
> Once the OID is assigned, it is out of control of the assigner. So it
> is not a problem. We have used RSA labs OIDs from the start.
>
> We have in the past had many discussions on this and various solutions
> proposed. One being to set up an OID for a specific project and hand
> that over to the IETF together with the spec.
>
> But at the end of the day, renumbering code points in existing specs
> only introduces divergence and error. It is to be avoided.