Subject: RE: X9.42 and RFC2459 inconsistency?

From: "Jim Schaad (Exchange)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 13:34:24 -0700

I would object to changing this.  I have code which has shipped and uses
these OIDs.

jim

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Farrell [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, July 30, 1999 6:22 AM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: X9.42 and RFC2459 inconsistency? 

I wrote:

>Cool (and a welcome gesture towards fixing broken stuff). So why do we
>use their OID?

Sine there's been a deafing silence on this topic, I have two further
questions:

(1) Are there any deployed codebases which would object to changing the
Diffie-Hellman OID in rfc2459 to reflect the fact that it has different
semantics than in X9.42? 

I know that John Pawling has stated that Van Dyke's S/MIME Freeware
Library has no issues, and as far as I know Microsoft haven't shipped
anything with Diffie-Hellman, so that S/MIME would appear to be in the
clear on this.

(2) Are there any other groups that profile 2459 that we should ask
about this?.

Andrew

---

From: "Bob Jueneman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Aug 1999 16:41:09 -0600

We aren't shipping it yet, but have planned to use the RFC 2459 OID,
as we haven't been following X9 that closely.  We could potentially 
support both uses, but rather not, especially for VPN.

Of course, I'm not all that hot on the use of DH to begin with,
since the primary rational seems to be intellectual property-related 
rather than technical.

Bob

>>> "Jim Schaad (Exchange)" <[email-masked]> 08/06/99 02:34PM >>>

jim

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Farrell [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, July 30, 1999 6:22 AM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked] 
Subject: Re: X9.42 and RFC2459 inconsistency? 

Andrew

---

From: Peter Siklosi <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 11:26:55 +0200

Andrew,

In the RFC2459, section 7.3.2, it says:

   "The Diffie-Hellman OID supported by this profile is defined by ANSI X9.42"

I am not sure what you mean by the "X9.42 oid with the pfc 2459 semantics".

Regards,
Peter

John Hughes wrote:
>We can generate D-H certificates - and we use the rfc 2459 dhpublicnumber
>OID.

Andrew Farrel wrote:
> You mean the X9.42 oid with the pfc 2459 semantics? Do you have serious
> "Permanent root for paying customer" certs using this out there? And if
> so, why? :)