[lamps] IANA Considerations text for OID allocations

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Russ Housley <[e-mail]> wrote:
    > I do not see the problem with IANA registries.  All of the other name
    > registrations are here:

I'm not saying the registries are bad, I'm saying that the resulting IANA
Considerations text in the RFC is poor.

    > https://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers/smi-numbers.xhtml#smi-numbers-1.3.6.1.5.5.7.8

    > They all begin with 1.3.6.1.5.5.7.8, which is id-on in the ASN.1
    > module.

yes.
I'm trying to get the same clearness in the RFC as well.
see below:

    >> Yes.  RFC8994's IANA section says:
    >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8994#section-12

    doc} For the otherName / AcpNodeName, IANA has assigned value 10 for id-
    doc} on-AcpNodeName in the "SMI Security for PKIX Other Name Forms"
    doc} (1.3.6.1.5.5.7.8) registry.

What if IANA instead wrote:

For the otherName / AcpNodeName, IANA has assigned value 10 
for id-doc on-AcpNodeName in the "SMI Security for PKIX Other Name Forms"
(1.3.6.1.5.5.7.8) registry, resulting in an OID of 1.3.6.1.5.5.7.8.10.


I *think* that the paragraph above gets inserted by IANA, and not by the authors.


-- 
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-