Re: Review on S/MIME OIDs

Jim:

> Here are some review comments as part of doing the Shepard Write-up.
> 
> 1.  The ASN1-97 reference should be updated to the latest version.  I
> currently have these as 11/2008.

Isn't that ASN1-08?

I chose to reference the two incompatible versions of the syntax.

> 2.  The root of the arc should be
> 
>      id-smime OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1) member-body(2)
>                  us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) pkcs9(9) smime(16) }
> 
> (addition of a name for the last number in the list)

Doing this would define two labels, smime and id-smime.

> 3.  In section 3.2, I am not sure that I understand what the description
> field is supposed to indicate.  I expect this to be a descriptive field, and
> thus not need the hyphens.  I would also expect that the table should
> probably include the tag that is used for the field when it exists in an
> ASN.1 file.  Thus it would be
> 
> 0   Module Identifiers   mod  [This RFC]

I'm fine with removing the hyphens.  I do not see the value in the "mod" column.  It is just a convention that I used to help me manage the OID registry.

> 4.  There is a naming philoshpy change that occurred part of the way through
> our use of the arc  This means that the string id-mod-domsec does not appear
> in RFC 3274, instead it simply uses domsec for the assigned name of the arc.
> Should this document be using the same names as are in the actual ASN.1
> modules or should we be using the new strings that do not appear in the
> modules.

There was no change in the convention.  Some RFCs use a module name other than the object identifier.  I do not see that as a problem.

> 5.  Should we publish the current ASN.1 module as an informational appendix?

Subsequent additions to the registry would make the module incomplete.  So, the value would be fleeting.

Russ

_______________________________________________
smime mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/smime