Should we have initial values for the OIDS?

[sfluhrer]

In order for us to come up with independent interoperable versions, we'll need to agree on values for the internal OIDs. Should we put those initial values in the draft (with a note stating that these are not the final values)?

[ounsworth]

We could use the one(s) from Max's draft:

   id-pk-compositeCrypto OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1)
         identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1) private(4)
         enterprise(1) OpenCA(18227) Algorithms(2) 1 }

[csosto-pk]

I asked to get them allocated by IANA in

         iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1)
         security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7) algorithms(6)

in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lamps-pkix-shake-11.

But if Max can allocate in that is fine too

         iso(1)  identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1) private(4)
         enterprise(1) OpenCA(18227) Algorithms(2)

[ounsworth]

I added the following to Dan's branch in Pull Request #51 :

id-Composite OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1) identified-organization(3) 
    dod(6) internet(1) security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7) algorithms(6)
    id-alg-composite(101) }

[danvangeest]

Pretty sure we shouldn't squat on IANA OIDs... They may be in the process of assigning that one, and we don't want to have a draft out there which could conflict. We should wait until we get an assigned value before reporting it in the draft.

[ounsworth]

Yup, fair.

Edited your branch again:

~~~ asn.1
id-Composite OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1)  identified-organization(3)
    dod(6) internet(1) private(4) enterprise(1) OpenCA(18227)
    Algorithms(2) id-alg-composite(101) }
~~~

and

# IANA Considerations {#sec-iana}
The ASN.1 module OID is TBD.  The id-Composite OID is to be assigned by IANA.  The authors suggest to use the id-pkix arc for this usage:

~~~
id-Composite OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1) identified-organization(3) 
    dod(6) internet(1) security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7) algorithms(6)
    id-alg-composite(??) }
~~~