<div dir="ltr">Not really.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 3:24 PM, 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">
<p>Thanks, Ryan, in that case Section 3.2.6.1.(Predefined
Statements) of RFC 3739 would be more relevant.</p>
<p>ETSI implementation here: ETSI EN 319 412-1, Electronic
Signatures and Infrastructures (ESI); Certificate Profiles; Part
1: Overview and common data structures<br>
</p>
<p>Thanks,<br>
</p>
<p>M.D.<br>
</p><div><div class="h5">
<br>
<div>On 7/13/2016 11:13 PM, Ryan Sleevi
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<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> <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>
<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>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>