[cabfpub] EV Gudelines section 9.2.5 & X.520

[Ryan Sleevi]

Moudrick,

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.

On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 11:37 AM, Moudrick M. Dadashov <md at ssc.lt> wrote:

>
> On 7/13/2016 8:33 PM, Ryan Sleevi wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 10:26 AM, Rich Smith <richard.smith at comodo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> I'm not sure I understand these last points, practically speaking.
>
> Why is it a matter of good-housekeeping? The counter-argument is it sounds
> like NIH-syndrome.
>
> 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?
>
> 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.
>
> 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?
>
>
> Maybe not just "branding" :)
>
> Consider OIDs  specifically representing CA/B Forum policy provisions, I
> mean similar to those in RFC 3739.
>
> Thanks,
>
> M.D.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Public mailing listPublic at cabforum.orghttps://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20160713/337013d9/attachment.html