Re: Use of "unassigned" in IANA registries

[Paul Wouters <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, 14 Jan 2011, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:

> I suggest that the IAB consider a policy for registries that requires all cryptographic and application layer code
> points to make use of an approved extensible identifier format, with the two approved forms being URIs and ASN.1 OIDs.

-1

Not technology agnostic. 
Variable length instead of fixed length

A single byte or two bytes can work for anyone with any technology, now and 50 years from now.

> The main impact of this would be felt in cryptographic protocols. Instead of having separate private use code spaces
> being maintained for IPSEC, DNSSEC, TLS and PKIX, each of the protocols would be extended to allow the use of ASN.1 OIDs
> (where these are not already used) for private code space. It would be up to the developer of the algorithm to assign
> the OID.

It's too late for that now anyway isn't it. The code path is there, and if you want to be compatible
you have to implement it. Adding a second (complicated!) code path isn't going to help anyone make it
easier.

> The advantage of this approach would be that the 'vanity crypto' problem would largely disappear. Particularly if the
> IETF/SAAG took the approach that it would only recommend algorithms after it was demonstrated that a very substantial
> community were either using

catch-22. How can a substantial community use them before it has become a real standard?

> Let a hundred flowers bloom and then Darwin can take care from that point on.

I prefer my crypto more intelligently designed.

Paul