I favor doing what is easiest, and that is keeping the OIDs as they
are. In the end what difference does it make where the number
was assigned. This may not be the "pure" solution, but it is just
a number that some application has to interpret.
We tend to get into very long discussions over issues that do
not really have any long term consequences. I suggest that
whoever (Harry and Ira?) is responsible for editing this document
make a decision and the rest of us just live with it.
Ron Bergman
Hitachi Koki Imaging Solutions
James Kempf wrote:
> I think I understand now what some of the confusion around the OIDs taken
> from the SLP template conversion draft might be.
>> I'm looking at an Internet draft, draft-sun-ldap-print-schema-00.txt,
> done by Ken Jones of Sun which appears to be a Sun-specific LDAP schema for
> printers, dated this Feburary. This draft has *ABSOLUTELY NOTHING* to do with
> draft-ietf-svrloc-template-conversion-05.txt, which is an official
> document of the SLP working group, on track for an informational RFC. As Ludovic
> pointed out, the fact that the OIDs were reserved means that they *WILL NOT* be
> used for anything else, and that they explicitly belong to the SLP working
> group to use in the RFC. Sun won't be using them or deriving anything from them
> for any internal purpose.
>> If people are still uncomfortable with having Sun allocated OIDs in
> the schema, I have a request pending at IANA to get a special OID
> for the draft. I will not follow up on the request unless I hear
> some strong voices to the contrary.
>> I'd also suggest that someone from the IPP group follow up with Ken
> and see whether he might not be interested in using the standardized
> schema (I'll try on my end as well).
>> jak