Subject Re: SCHAC OIDs
From Peter Schober <peter.schober@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date Tue, 14 Oct 2014 08:20:59 +0200

* Heather Flanagan <hlflanagan@xxxxxxxxx> [2014-10-14 01:18]:
> If you go to the page that refers to the original IANA assignment,
>, you will see:
> The branch is reserved for SCHAC.
> - Branch for SCHAC LDAP object classes
> - Branch for SCHAC LDAP attributes

That's also what's in the published schema (maybe someone can check
older versions of the schema for consistency, but I suspsect this will
be OK):

So all is good, no?

> However, if you go to the URN registry,
> you will see:

Well, the registry is wrong, it seems. As simple as that.

> I don't know why there is this discrepancy, and it seems like several
> people have implemented the OID structure as registered with IANA.

Well, only the is registered with IANA, AFAIU, but
if you mean people have implemented the published schema (see URL
above) which is consistent with the oid.html web site above, then it's
all good, no?

> Who will actually, not just theoretically, have things break if we
> make things match the registry?

Now you've lost me -- why would you want to make things match the
registry when (1) people likely have implemented what's in the
published schema (which is correct) and (2) when the registry is wrong?

> Fascinating question, and hopefully the organizations who have
> implemented SCHAC are looking at this mailing list

Jfyi (and not that it matters much): Your email didn't go out to the
schac mailing list. Maybe that's in the process of being
decommissioned anyway?
More importantly we know that academic institutions implementing SCHAC
in their directory server software for their own use are NOT looking
at the REFEDS list.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature