Subject: RE: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ldapbis-iana-01.txt

From: "Volpers, Helmut" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 10:25:30 +0200

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Timothy Hahn [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Freitag, 20. April 2001 20:38
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ldapbis-iana-01.txt

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: [email-masked]
Internal: Timothy Hahn/Endicott/IBM@IBMUS or IBMUSM00(HAHNT)
phone: 607.752.6388     tie-line: 8/852.6388
fax: 607.752.3681