[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
RE: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ldapbis-iana-01.txt
I
totally agree with Tim. changing OID's which are defined already is a bad idea
and
also
OID's that were assigned by a private organization should be
unique.
Regards
Helmut
Hi all,
I
feel that changing OIDs but representing the SAME attribute type is a bad
idea. If there were one thing we were thinking we could "count on" was
that IF and OID were assigned, then while the attribute type name might
change, the OID wouldn't.
A
different OID would represent a different attribute type/object class/syntax
from my perspective.
Now, for
standards track RFCs, sponsored by IETF workgroups, that are created from some
point in time forward, it seems reasonable to me to require these to use OIDs
that are managed/granted by an organization such as IANA. We have all
seen the trepidation that certain groups have had in having an IETF
workgroup-sponsored RFC contain OIDs that were assigned by a private
organization (I've seen this in the printers schema and the Kerberos schema as
well).
I wouldn't go changing
existing stuff though. Once IANA is established as a place for document
editors to go to get OIDs assigned, then lets recommend/require its use for
IETF workgroup-sponsored RFCs.
Regards,
Tim Hahn
Internet: hahnt@us.ibm.com
Internal:
Timothy Hahn/Endicott/IBM@IBMUS or IBMUSM00(HAHNT)
phone: 607.752.6388
tie-line: 8/852.6388
fax:
607.752.3681