Reference record for OID 1.2.840.10045.5

parent

1.2.840.10045 (ansi-x962)

node code

5

node name

module

dot oid

1.2.840.10045.5

asn1 oid

{iso(1) member-body(2) us(840) ansi-x962(10045) module(5)}

iri oid

/iso/member-body/us/ansi-x962/module

iri by oid_info

/ISO/Member-Body/US/10045/5

Description by oid_info

Modules
View at oid-info.com

Information by oid_info

From: Phillip H. Griffin
Date: Tue, 27 May 2003
CC: Don Johnson, Jeff Stapleton, Pud Reaver

Olivier Dubuisson wrote:
-----
Tthe 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.

Current Registration Authority (recovered by parent 1.2.840.10045)

X9F

Children (1)

Brothers (4)