IPP Mail Archive: RE: IPP> Re: Root OID for IPP Printer Sche

IPP Mail Archive: RE: IPP> Re: Root OID for IPP Printer Sche

RE: IPP> Re: Root OID for IPP Printer Schema

From: Manros, Carl-Uno B (cmanros@cp10.es.xerox.com)
Date: Fri Apr 21 2000 - 16:18:45 EDT

  • Next message: James Kempf: "RE: IPP> Re: Root OID for IPP Printer Schema"

    Bruce,

    I think we have an added problem in that Sun also intends to use this branch
    for some of their private extensions which go beyond the standardized
    values. I think that mixing the two on the same OID branch would cause more
    confusion then what it is worth.

    Carl-Uno

    Carl-Uno Manros
    Principal Engineer - Xerox Architecture Center - Xerox Corporation
    701 S. Aviation Blvd., El Segundo, CA, M/S: ESAE-231
    Phone +1-310-333 8273, Fax +1-310-333 5514
    Email: manros@cp10.es.xerox.com

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Bruce Greenblatt [mailto:bgreenblatt@directory-applications.com]
    Sent: Friday, April 21, 2000 1:12 PM
    To: harryl@us.ibm.com; Alexis Bor
    Cc: cmanros@cp10.es.xerox.com; ietf-ldapext@netscape.com; ipp@pwg.org;
    mark.wahl@innosoft.com
    Subject: RE: IPP> Re: Root OID for IPP Printer Schema

    I think this is OK. For example, the S/MIME RFCs have OIDs from the RSA
    arc, e.g.:

    SecureMimeMessageV3
      { iso(1) member-body(2) us(840) rsadsi(113549)
             pkcs(1) pkcs-9(9) smime(16) modules(0) smime(4) }

    This is in RFC 2633, which is an IETF Standards Track document. This it is
    politcally correct to have an OID that is in a corporate arc in a standards
    document. My recommendation, is to just continue using the ones that are
    in the draft, and not worry about it.

    Bruce

    At 01:42 PM 4/21/2000 -0600, harryl@us.ibm.com wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >Personally, I don't care about "politically" correct, I'm simply trying to
    >be correct.
    >
    >I think a standards track RFC will carry the IETF copyright meaning the
    >IETF is ultimately responsible for "change control" and would (presumably)
    >desire not to have OIDs managed and maintained by a private enterprise.
    >
    >Granted, there's not a lot of dynamics available that could inadvertently
    >"hose" an assigned OID subtree... no matter where it lies.
    >
    >Harry Lewis
    >IBM Printing Systems
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >"Alexis Bor" <alexis.bor@directoryworks.com>
    >Sent by: owner-ipp@pwg.org
    >04/21/00 01:02 PM
    >
    >
    > To: "Manros, Carl-Uno B" <cmanros@cp10.es.xerox.com>, "Bruce
    >Greenblatt"
    ><bgreenblatt@directory-applications.com>, Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS,
    ><mark.wahl@innosoft.com>, <ietf-ldapext@netscape.com>
    > cc: <ipp@pwg.org>
    > Subject: RE: IPP> Re: Root OID for IPP Printer Schema
    >
    >
    >All we are doing is making IETF more politically correct, and thus making
    >politics slow down the technical process... Are we going to go through
    >several version of the draft arguing over this???
    >
    >Let's just choose one and move on... It will not impact the sales of
    >any
    >products nor the operation of any protocol...
    >
    >-- Alexis
    >
    >Alexis Bor
    >Directory Works, Inc.
    >alexis.bor@directoryworks.com
    >http://www.directoryworks.com
    >
    >-----Original Message-----
    >From: Manros, Carl-Uno B [mailto:cmanros@cp10.es.xerox.com]
    >Sent: Friday, April 21, 2000 11:33 AM
    >To: Bruce Greenblatt; harryl@us.ibm.com; mark.wahl@innosoft.com;
    >ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
    >Cc: ipp@pwg.org
    >Subject: RE: IPP> Re: Root OID for IPP Printer Schema
    >
    >Bruce,
    >
    >It is politically incorrect. We had objections raised in IET47 on this.
    >
    >Carl-Uno Manros
    >IETF IPP Chair
    >
    >
    >-----Original Message-----
    >From: Bruce Greenblatt [mailto:bgreenblatt@directory-applications.com]
    >Sent: Friday, April 21, 2000 11:26 AM
    >To: harryl@us.ibm.com; mark.wahl@innosoft.com; ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
    >Cc: ipp@pwg.org
    >Subject: IPP> Re: Root OID for IPP Printer Schema
    >
    >
    >What's wrong with continuing to use the one from Sun? As long as it is
    >unambiguous, who cares?
    >
    >Bruce
    >
    >At 11:59 AM 4/21/2000 -0600, harryl@us.ibm.com wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>The Internet Printing Protocol Working Group is developing an Internet
    >>Draft describing an LDAP Schema for Printer Services.
    >>
    >>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipp-ldap-printer-schema-00.
    t
    >
    >xt
    >>
    >>
    >>For expediency, the initial draft specifies OIDs from a Sun Microsystems
    >>private enterprise subtree. In preparation for a standards track document
    >>we would like these OIDs to be routed in a standards subtree. We want to
    >>harmonize with any convention that may exist within the LDAP community
    >for
    >>registering this subtree. Will the LDAP group make the request for an
    >>assigned OID subtree or would you prefer for the IPP group to make the
    >>request?
    >>
    >>Harry Lewis
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >==============================================
    >Bruce Greenblatt, Ph. D.
    >Directory Tools and Application Services, Inc.
    >http://www.directory-applications.com
    >Sign up for our LDAP Technical Overview Seminar at:
    >http://www.acteva.com/go/dtasi
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    ==============================================
    Bruce Greenblatt, Ph. D.
    Directory Tools and Application Services, Inc.
    http://www.directory-applications.com
    Sign up for our LDAP Technical Overview Seminar at:
    http://www.acteva.com/go/dtasi



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 21 2000 - 16:27:55 EDT