RE: draft-ietf-pkix-rfc2511bis

[Carlisle Adams <[e-mail]>]

Hi Russ,
 
In RFC 2511, the body of the spec (in Section 7, on page 11) says that
{id-regInfo 1} is called "id-regInfo-asciiPairs" with a syntax of OCTET
STRING, but the ASN.1 module (a few lines before the END statement, on page
23) says that this same OID is called "id-regInfo-utf8Pairs" with a syntax
of UTF8String.
 
The change made in rfc2511bis was to correct this error and align the text
in the body of the spec with the ASN.1 module.  Thus, both places now say
that the {id-regInfo 1} OID is called "id-regInfo-utf8Pairs" with a syntax
of UTF8String.  There was no intent to change the semantics of an existing
OID.
 
Carlisle.
 
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Russ Housley [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 9:54 AM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: draft-ietf-pkix-rfc2511bis


I am concerned about the change that is illustrated below (please excuse the
HTML).


   -- Registration Info in CRMF

   id-regInfo       OBJECT

IDENTIFIER ::= { id-pkip id-regInfo(2) }

  

id-regInfo-asciiPairs

  

id-regInfo-utf8Pairs   

OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-regInfo 1 }

   --with syntax

OCTET STRING

UTF8STRING

   id-regInfo-certReq       OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-regInfo 2 }

   --with syntax CertRequest


First, I am concerned about the change in the semantics associated with an
OID that was assigned a long time ago.  This could lead to interoperability
issues.  Why would we change the semantics of an existing OID instead of
assigning a new OID.

Second, this change does not show up in the ASN.1 module.  Why are the OIDs
not part of the ASN.1 module?

Russ