I think this is OK. For example, the S/MIME RFCs have OIDs from the RSA
arc, e.g.:
SecureMimeMessageV3
{ iso(1) member-body(2) us(840) rsadsi(113549)
pkcs(1) pkcs-9(9) smime(16) modules(0) smime(4) }
This is in RFC 2633, which is an IETF Standards Track document. This it is
politcally correct to have an OID that is in a corporate arc in a standards
document. My recommendation, is to just continue using the ones that are
in the draft, and not worry about it.
Bruce
At 01:42 PM 4/21/2000 -0600, harryl@us.ibm.com wrote:
>
>
>
>Personally, I don't care about "politically" correct, I'm simply trying to
>be correct.
>
>I think a standards track RFC will carry the IETF copyright meaning the
>IETF is ultimately responsible for "change control" and would (presumably)
>desire not to have OIDs managed and maintained by a private enterprise.
>
>Granted, there's not a lot of dynamics available that could inadvertently
>"hose" an assigned OID subtree... no matter where it lies.
>
>Harry Lewis
>IBM Printing Systems
>
>
>
>
>"Alexis Bor" <alexis.bor@directoryworks.com>
>Sent by: owner-ipp@pwg.org
>04/21/00 01:02 PM
>
>
> To: "Manros, Carl-Uno B" <cmanros@cp10.es.xerox.com>, "Bruce
>Greenblatt"
><bgreenblatt@directory-applications.com>, Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS,
><mark.wahl@innosoft.com>, <ietf-ldapext@netscape.com>
> cc: <ipp@pwg.org>
> Subject: RE: IPP> Re: Root OID for IPP Printer Schema
>
>
>All we are doing is making IETF more politically correct, and thus making
>politics slow down the technical process... Are we going to go through
>several version of the draft arguing over this???
>
>Let's just choose one and move on... It will not impact the sales of
>any
>products nor the operation of any protocol...
>
>-- Alexis
>
>Alexis Bor
>Directory Works, Inc.
>alexis.bor@directoryworks.com
>http://www.directoryworks.com
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Manros, Carl-Uno B [mailto:cmanros@cp10.es.xerox.com]
>Sent: Friday, April 21, 2000 11:33 AM
>To: Bruce Greenblatt; harryl@us.ibm.com; mark.wahl@innosoft.com;
>ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
>Cc: ipp@pwg.org
>Subject: RE: IPP> Re: Root OID for IPP Printer Schema
>
>Bruce,
>
>It is politically incorrect. We had objections raised in IET47 on this.
>
>Carl-Uno Manros
>IETF IPP Chair
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Bruce Greenblatt [mailto:bgreenblatt@directory-applications.com]
>Sent: Friday, April 21, 2000 11:26 AM
>To: harryl@us.ibm.com; mark.wahl@innosoft.com; ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
>Cc: ipp@pwg.org
>Subject: IPP> Re: Root OID for IPP Printer Schema
>
>
>What's wrong with continuing to use the one from Sun? As long as it is
>unambiguous, who cares?
>
>Bruce
>
>At 11:59 AM 4/21/2000 -0600, harryl@us.ibm.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>The Internet Printing Protocol Working Group is developing an Internet
>>Draft describing an LDAP Schema for Printer Services.
>>
>>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipp-ldap-printer-schema-00.t
>
>xt
>>
>>
>>For expediency, the initial draft specifies OIDs from a Sun Microsystems
>>private enterprise subtree. In preparation for a standards track document
>>we would like these OIDs to be routed in a standards subtree. We want to
>>harmonize with any convention that may exist within the LDAP community
>for
>>registering this subtree. Will the LDAP group make the request for an
>>assigned OID subtree or would you prefer for the IPP group to make the
>>request?
>>
>>Harry Lewis
>>
>>
>>
>==============================================
>Bruce Greenblatt, Ph. D.
>Directory Tools and Application Services, Inc.
>http://www.directory-applications.com
>Sign up for our LDAP Technical Overview Seminar at:
>http://www.acteva.com/go/dtasi
>
>
>
>
>
==============================================
Bruce Greenblatt, Ph. D.
Directory Tools and Application Services, Inc.
http://www.directory-applications.com
Sign up for our LDAP Technical Overview Seminar at:
http://www.acteva.com/go/dtasi
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 21 2000 - 16:20:50 EDT