Subject: RE: draft-ietf-pkix-pi

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 May 2003 21:12:17 -0400

Mike:

No.  At this point, we are asking questions.

Russ

At 05:46 PM 4/25/2003 -0700, Michael Myers wrote:
> >
> >IdentifierType ::= CHOICE {
> >    registeredOID         OBJECT IDENTIFIER,
> >    uri                   IA5String }
>
>Russ,
>
>Please clarify.  Is the IESG saying the WG MUST eliminate the
>CHOICE and so select a single type?
>
>Mike

---

From: Denis Pinkas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 May 2003 20:24:09 +0200

Russ,

>> >    registeredOID         OBJECT IDENTIFIER,

The text says:

    The IdentifierType field may contain a registeredOID in the form of :

            a) an Object Identifier (i.e. an OID), or
            b) a *permanent* URI using IA5String.

    Characteristically, when an OID is used, the prefix of the OID
    identifies the organization, and a suffix is used to identify the
    type of permanent identifier being identified.  Essentially the
    same thing is true of URI’s.

In fact, the same thing is not fully true for URIs. This is only true if the 
URI is *permanent* and the only URI that currently has that characteristics 
is: www.w3.org.

I have had many discussions on that topic with Tom, but personnaly, since 
The IESG asked the question, I would delete uri and keep only registeredOID, 
since the concept of permanent URIs does not exist (if a URI is not paid 
during some period of time, it may be sold to another organisation).

W3C in its statutes mentions that it will pay for ever to keep that URI. 
Since some "old" organisations like the MIT are part of W3C, it is likely 
that some money will be available to pay for that URI still for a long time.

Currently, W3C is only willing to provider URIs under its own URI for 
companies/organisations that are members of W3C.

Denis