Olivier Dubuisson wrote:
-----
the following OID was described as:
OID : {iso(1) member-body(2) us(840) ansi-x962(10045) signatures(4) ecdsa-with-SHA1(1)}
Description: ANSI X9.62 ECDSA signatures with SHA-1 in the OID database.
In one of the files available on your website, we've found the following information:
OID : {iso(1) member-body(2) us(840) 10045 module(4) 1}
Description: Modules
Registrant : X9F
Which one is right? "module" or "signatures"?
-----
Both ;)
I made an error in writing the X9.62 ASN.1 and assigned this OID twice, once to the module OID and again to the signatures. Best to let signatures win, as these actually have an effect on products and code, and change the module assignment from: ANSI-X9-62 { iso(1) member-body(2) us(840) 10045 module(4) 1 }
DEFINITIONS EXPLICIT TAGS ::= BEGIN
and ANSI-X9-62 { iso(1) member-body(2) us(840) 10045 module(4) 2 }
DEFINITIONS EXPLICIT TAGS ::= BEGIN
to ANSI-X9-62 { iso(1) member-body(2) us(840) 10045 module(5) 1 }
DEFINITIONS EXPLICIT TAGS ::= BEGIN
and ANSI-X9-62 { iso(1) member-body(2) us(840) 10045 module(5) 2 }
DEFINITIONS EXPLICIT TAGS ::= BEGIN
I'll contact by CC some X9F chairs and get them to ask Miles Smid to get this changed to 5 in the next X9.62 revision.
iso(1)
ecdsa-with-SHA1(1)
![[webmaster]](/images/enveloppe.jpg){kind=small}
