Path: utzoo!censor!geac!joey
From: joey@geac.com (Joey DeWiele)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso
Subject: OSI Registration.
Message-ID: <1990Feb16.163210.31200@geac.com>
Date: 16 Feb 90 16:32:10 GMT
Organization: Geac Computer Corporation
Lines: 110


Here's a couple of questions for all the "OSI Registration" gurus
out there, that is, if there is such a thing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here in Canada, the Canadian Standards Association has assumed
responsibility for acting as the "National Registration Authority for OSI" 
for Canada. The CSA hopes to act as a registration authority as specified
in ISO 4th DP 9834-1.

The first draft of the Canadian registraion authority procedures allows
for the registration of both numeric and alphanumeric values for 
organization names.

I find the requirements for registration of alphanumeric strings to be
fairly confusing.

First of all, it seems to me that organizations already have legal title
to their names, and *reregistration* for the purpose of OSI seems 
unnecessary. There seems to be this idea, held by a numer of people, that
registration of organization names is a requirement to have your organization
listed in the OSI Directory. Not only do I find this idea horrifying from
the perspective of a prospective vendor of a Directory product, but it seems
totally divorced from the reality of the business and legal environment.

It seems to me that if organization A wants to have a Directory listing
with, say, Western Union, that the last thing that Western Union will want
is to require organization A to *reregister* their name with some registration
authority, an authority which in all likelyhood will not have any legal status
with respect to authorizing use of names. Western Union must already 
be prepared to deal with issues such as legal entitlement to use string names
in a Directory, issues which some government registration authority will most
likely, in my opinion, only cloud.

Furthermore, it strikes me that any registration authority run by the 
government could be subject to lawsuits if they inadvertently allow 
the registration of a string name by an organization not entitled to use it.
Especially if that *registered name* gets publicized in a public Directory
service run by a company like Western Union (or for that matter used as part
of an O/R address).

It seems that the only way that a government organization could run a string
name registration authority is if it maintains that registration of the 
name *has no legal consequences whatsoever*, and is in otherwords meaningless.

I have heard some arguments that SC18 in Canada has put forward requirements
for government registration of string names. Although I am ignorant of name
registration requirements of MHS users and service providers, it would seem
to me that the same arguments would apply.

All in all, I have come to the conclusion that government registration of 
string names is a dumb idea.

However, I am willing to have my ignorance of this issue demonstrated by
"Registration Authority" experts from all over the world, who will submit
clear and convincing arguments for string name registration that will leave
me speechless in the face of sudden realization of the sound and pressing
requirements for this sort of thing.

As to assignment of numeric values, the second component of the Canadian
registration procedures for OSI, there seems to be an obvious requirement
for organizations to be able to acquire values of type OBJECT IDENTIFIER
to use for the purposes commonly associated with object identifiers, such
as the identification of TYPES of information objects, such as particular
Directory OBJECT CLASSES and ATTRIBUTES defined for Directory applications,
and for numerous other uses.

The Canadian procedures do not identify how the numeric values assigned
fit into the object identifier tree. My question of you registration
gurus from other countries is this:

Is it desirable for a national registration authority to subdivide the name
space underneath the "member-body" arc defined in 9834 (or more properly 8824),
as shown below:

                         ISO(1)
                           |
                           |
                       member-body(2)
                           |
                           |
          +---- Canada(xxx defined in 3166)--+
          |                 |                |
          |                 |                |
    organizations(0)     standards(1)    other stuff(2)
     |  |  |  |  |       |  |  |  |      |  |  |  |  |

Notes:
    - by standards I mean Canadian standards, which in most cases involving
      OSI are Canadian approved ISO standards;
    - you need a dozen standards to figure this all out, I don't know
      Canada's 3166 code, and by other stuff I mean things like Application
      Contexts, AE-titles, and "other-stuff" I don't know about, for which
      I have no idea what registration implications there are.

or can the space below Canada be a "grab-bag" mix of different things?


Anyway, I could become convinced that while our company would like to "buy"
a value of type "OBJECT IDENTIFIER", we don't want to be forced to 
"reregister" our name!

Signed,

Confused By Registration
(aka Joey)

P.S.
    - do these string values get used as object descriptors for the
      registered OIDs?