IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Sat, 28 March 2015 14:18 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
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 D16601A87DF for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 28 Mar 2015 07:18:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.31
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.31 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 hmxcVvByhvQ9 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 28 Mar 2015 07:18:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0495F1A1EF7 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 28 Mar 2015 07:18:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7C46BEB1; Sat, 28 Mar 2015 14:18:11 +0000 (GMT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NbIzYfbKnisQ; Sat, 28 Mar 2015 14:18:10 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [10.32.65.98] (unknown [31.221.87.78]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A4587BEA0; Sat, 28 Mar 2015 14:18:10 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <5516B822.2020100@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2015 14:18:10 +0000
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Massimiliano Pala <director@openca.org>, IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Use of private OIDs in WG (standard-track) documents
References: <55163324.6030504@openca.org> <CAMm+Lwirfg8Z+TAwCU76Evqzv-6kfUB2UczaW6fn3BYyvNP1Og@mail.gmail.com> <5516B0DC.4060401@openca.org>
In-Reply-To: <5516B0DC.4060401@openca.org>
OpenPGP: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/hXlHXkN5s2J0e9dp76mOBt1o1X8>
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 14:18:13 -0000

Max,

On 28/03/15 13:47, Massimiliano Pala wrote:
> I think that allowing this as a common practice is a bit dangerous.

What danger do you perceive here? I'm not seeing it. Nor do I see any
need at all for an "official" IETF-wide position, and in fact, such a
position is quite likely to be counterproductive IMO.

And as Phill said, re-numbering, if it breaks code, isn't a good
plan. Asking if it would break code, etc. on the trans list, is a
totally reasonable question btw and that discussion is already
happening there.

S.

PS: This isn't about a MIB, but a PKI thing.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email