delayed contribution uploaded

Sasha Ruditsky sasha at RADVISION.COM
Fri Jan 25 10:19:11 EST 2002


A clash of overlapping OIDs values has been detected in H.235Version 2.

OIDs "K", "L" and "M" in the Appendix I currently have the same value
assigned as OIDs "A", "B" and "R" of Annex E. However, of course each of the
mentioned OIDs shall have a unique value in order to unambiguously identify
its purpose. Implementations deploying OIDs from Annex E and Appendix I
might thus currently run into interoperability problems.

It is proposed to re-allocate the OIDs in Appendix I with new and distinct
values (see below).

Object Identifier Reference
Object Identifier Value
"K"     {itu-t (0) recommendation (0) h (8) 235 version (0) 2 31}
indicates a RADIUS challenge in the ClearToken
"L"     {itu-t (0) recommendation (0) h (8) 235 version (0) 2 32}
indicates a RADIUS response (conveyed in the challenge field) in the
"M"     {itu-t (0) recommendation (0) h (8) 235 version (0) 2 33}
indicates BES default mode with a protected password in the ClearToken
Table I.1/H.235: Object Identifiers used by Appendix I.4.6

Please, let me hear your opinion on whether the proposal appears acceptable,
or suggest your alternative otherwise.

With kind regards

Martin Euchner.
| Dipl.-Inf.                     Phone: +49 89 722 55790
| Martin Euchner                 Fax  : +49 89 722 47713
| Siemens AG
| ICN M SR 3                     mailto:Martin.Euchner at
<mailto:Martin.Euchner at>
|                                mailto:martin.euchner at
<mailto:martin.euchner at>
| Hofmannstr. 51                 Intranet:
| D-81359 Muenchen               Internet:
| __________________
| Germany

More information about the sg16-avd mailing list