<div dir="ltr">Moudrick,<div><br></div><div>As the subject indicates, this is about naming OIDs, not policy OIDs - that is, the format and structure of name forms. So no, they don't represent policy OIDs, which do come from the CA/B Forum arc already.</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 11:37 AM, Moudrick M. Dadashov <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:md@ssc.lt" target="_blank">md@ssc.lt</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><div><div class="h5">
<br>
<div>On 7/13/2016 8:33 PM, Ryan Sleevi
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 10:26 AM,
Rich Smith <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:richard.smith@comodo.com" target="_blank">richard.smith@comodo.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"> I don't have any
concrete objection to these OIDs being maintained under
Microsoft's hierarchy, however as memory serves they
were put there because at the time the CA/B Forum did
not have an OID hierarchy of our own under which to
create them. Personally I think it would be a good idea
to duplicate these OIDs in house at this point, and over
time deprecate the use of the ones under the Microsoft
structure. I don't think this is a pressing issue, and
probably not even strictly necessary, but I do see it as
a matter of good 'house-keeping'. If they're under CA/B
Forum control we don't need to ask someone else to
define them, and we don't have to accept their
definition if it's one we don't necessarily agree with.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I'm not sure I understand these last points,
practically speaking.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Why is it a matter of good-housekeeping? The
counter-argument is it sounds like NIH-syndrome.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Why do we need to ask someone to define them,
considering they're defined already? Why do we need to
worry about accepting the definition, considering it's
already been accepted?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I'm explicitly opposed to the change as argued because
it means needless churn and complexity in software. If
this were a fresh start, I would be understanding - but
even then, I'd be opposed to putting it under a CA/B Forum
arc 'simply because', if an alternative presented itself.
For example, if a member/vendor in possession of a small
OID arc were willing to 'donate' OIDs for future purposes
that were smaller, in their encoded form, then the OID arc
of the CA/B Forum (presently, 2.23.140, so I mean, it's
unlikely but possible), then great - let's do that
instead.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I'm also not opposed to moving to a CA/B Forum set of
OIDs if there were other compelling reasons to. But so
far, it seems to solely be about 'branding' than any
concrete technical need. Am I missing something?</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></div><p>Maybe not just "branding" :)</p>
<p>Consider OIDs specifically representing CA/B Forum policy
provisions, I mean similar to those in RFC 3739. <br>
</p>
<p>Thanks,</p>
<p>M.D.<br>
</p><span class="">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
<a href="mailto:Public@cabforum.org" target="_blank">Public@cabforum.org</a>
<a href="https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public" target="_blank">https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</span></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>