<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Ryan,<br>
My suggestion was based purely on the fact that any documented use
of these OIDs is, to the best of my knowledge, only in CA/B Forum
work product, so it seemed a good idea to me, now that we can, to
transition them to actually being CA/B Forum OIDs. I don't have
strong feelings on the matter, but I do think it makes things
cleaner over the long haul, especially should we decide to add other
related OIDs into future work product, to have them managed in
house. But I do take your point as to it being a lot of technical
changes, both on browser/relying party side and CA side for what, at
least at this moment in time, has pretty much zero need or payback
aside from the above mentioned possible future 'benefits'.<br>
-Rich<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/13/2016 12:33 PM, Ryan Sleevi
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CACvaWvbpCWJF0Y9Qt3NUwkEYSQui_VWRqGazWQPo4qdarVuyTQ@mail.gmail.com"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>