Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jarthur!ucivax!gateway
From: PWW@bnr.ca (Peter Whittaker (P.W.) )
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.x400
Subject: re: Re: Is X.400 good for international mail?
Message-ID: <91Jan12.020040est.58358@ugw.utcs.utoronto.ca>
Date: 12 Jan 91 09:59:40 GMT
Lines: 52
Approved: usenet@ICS.UCI.EDU
x-attn: jns
X-Previously-To: na-mhsnews-request@ICS.UCI.EDU
ReSent-From: Jerry Sweet <mhsnews-request@ICS.UCI.EDU>
ReSent-To: mhsnews@ICS.UCI.EDU

> We've already gone to some vendors and asked them about OIDS and the
> response has been "What!?"  In that case it seems like the best thing
> for us to do is contact the company, ask them if they have one, if they
> don't, ask if they mind if we generate one for them, and then notify
> them of it when we have.  Even this isn't great, because when you call
> that company several months later you still aren't likely to find anyone
> who knows what you're talking about, so some kind of informal database
> on the Internet and elsewhere is probably a good idea too.


Frankly, I think this is a downright bad idea:  if the company says "go
ahead", without being aware of the issues involved, they may find themselves
with an OID generated (in good faith) by an organization they might any
associations with.  For the LOTUS example, they may well want to register
with ANSI, but they might want to regiter with RARE.  They might also not
want to receive a number from the IAB under any circumstances.

OIDs should be a technical issue, but they quickly become a political issue
when you realize that your product's OIDs may have potential competitors
in them (i.e. if the IAB decides that 2.4.1001.45.76 is good for a LOTUS
spreadsheet, and 45 happens to belong to WIDGET, INC, who has given the IAB
proxy for OID assignment, LOTUS might say "But we're not part of WIDGET!").

Okay, so it is farfetched! :-> :->

The point is, no matter how frustrating it is for users/customers, companies
must be allowed to seek 'de jure' OIDs for their products rather than
being forced into 'de facto' ones.  Put pressure on the organization:  write
to the P, or technical VP, describing the situation.  Tell your local service
people.  Flood their mailing lists until they respond :->, but don't do
the registration for them.

The surest way to get someone to close their brain and refuse to understand
something is to force that something (or even a part of it, such as an OID)
upon them.  While it is unfortunate, a lot of the functionality and features
we want from OSI/CCITT standards is going to have to be provided by
bilateral agreements until the standards settle and become ubiquitous.

I would suggest a hack:  until each company has properly registered OIDs,
the Internet community should agree to use an '84 OID with some sort of
indicator in the subject line (i.e. L123SS-T5, or WP5.1PSDOC (*) ) as to
actual data type contained therein.

It's a really ugly idea.  Alternatives?

(*)  L123SS-T5:  Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheet type 5 (whatever - I dunno LOTUS).
     WP5.1PSDOC: WordPerfect 5.1 PostScript file (whatever - I dunno WP).

Peter Whittaker      [~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~]   Open Systems Integration
pww@bnr.ca           [  Does Bo know Lotus?     ]   Bell Northern Research
Ph: +1 613 765 2064  [    Does Bo Care?         ]   P.O. Box 3511, Station C
FAX:+1 613 763 3283  [__________________________]   Ottawa, Ontario, K1Y 4H7