IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Leif Johansson <leifj@mnt.se> Sat, 28 March 2015 15:13 UTC

Return-Path: <leifj@mnt.se>
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 4B6921A88C3 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 28 Mar 2015 08:13:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 EoUvGq6Cvv0A for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 28 Mar 2015 08:13:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-f172.google.com (mail-ob0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) (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 C88511A88C0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 28 Mar 2015 08:13:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by obbld8 with SMTP id ld8so39401910obb.3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 28 Mar 2015 08:13:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:content-type:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references :to; bh=Q7iCscY65ZIva/N+S9M6qtD8ql0v3/hrZ+ikeW00jGI=; b=li7h/9b/SrPxv9psdPb4PF3E6qAVvkCnIf96rpNeUi9di37wPGacAEhGEm8+W3huB4 F5wdo+5+rlo67FmywwX2oxzr5YV/B1KO8bHzizlb2NlKmYEK0uAGSECVLZHxg7cXQ1HA ul9HuS+0l4NP04MWkhRsmAiFz3eVNd40LE8yOi4pS/Yn8xtca6XIpJwwlB8CdnbKMcxY 9qoc8JzFoy3pc4n9Arf8SFNbqBo0el2WTmZifSGNL8xClz7v1NEKMRLq55C1dt0XIqoO T8yZcXoeIJFRUvx1b5BBJTYdOP/1AxbdCTcmC2lEd7c5oxhk4QlWOlnp9RRnp/ISR5dt ycBA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkuDpOL3dd4vmkqMYzJeQEN47RiUK6gjiPHbBry7qnujzEYYZrak1LSs3lOFwYyAvelkvlc
X-Received: by 10.202.214.84 with SMTP id n81mr18907420oig.87.1427555601154; Sat, 28 Mar 2015 08:13:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.20.160.177] ([12.203.54.183]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id f133sm2928055oia.8.2015.03.28.08.13.19 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 28 Mar 2015 08:13:20 -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: Leif Johansson <leifj@mnt.se>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (12B466)
In-Reply-To: <5516B822.2020100@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2015 10:13:19 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <5AC9C4FD-0555-42AC-8FB4-2E9A7088A21E@mnt.se>
References: <55163324.6030504@openca.org> <CAMm+Lwirfg8Z+TAwCU76Evqzv-6kfUB2UczaW6fn3BYyvNP1Og@mail.gmail.com> <5516B0DC.4060401@openca.org> <5516B822.2020100@cs.tcd.ie>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/oX48j_K3oqxIRBv_vT3saymnXCQ>
Cc: IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
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 15:13:23 -0000



> 28 mar 2015 kl. 09:18 skrev Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>:
> 
> 
> 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.
> 

+1 we have enough work already wo having to invent stuff like this to keep us busy

> 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