Re: [TLS] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-tls-subcerts-14: (with COMMENT)

[Martin Duke <[e-mail]>]

Sounds good to me, thanks!

On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 9:22 AM Sean Turner <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> > On May 23, 2022, at 12:33, Martin Duke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >
> > Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for
> > draft-ietf-tls-subcerts-14: No Objection
> >
> > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> > introductory paragraph, however.)
> >
> >
> > Please refer to
> https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
> > for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> >
> >
> > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-subcerts/
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > COMMENT:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > A question to remedy by ignorance of ASN.1:
> >
> > How customary is it for the final standard to use an ASN.1 codepoint from
> > Cloudflare's private namespace? In other contexts I would expect change
> control
> > to lie with a more public institution.
> >
> > Put another way, what would happen if Cloudflare were purchased by
> EvilCorp one
> > day?
>
> I believe the WG did discuss switching the OID to the PKIX arc, but an OID
> is like you age - it’s just a number. Once assigned, nobody can really take
> it back. As far as common, it happens - I am hesitant to say all the time,
> but it is not uncommon. There are OIDs for modules, extensions, and
> algorithms out of company arcs and gov’t arcs. E.g.,
>
> Digest algorithms: SHA*-> Gov’t
> x25519, x448, Ed25519, Ed448 (RFC 8410) -> Thwate arc.
> TAMP (RFC 5934) -> Gov’t Arc.
>
> I am sure there are more.
>
> spt
>
>
>
>
>