Reference record for OID 1.2.840.10046.5

parent

1.2.840.10046 (ansi-x942)

node code

5

node name

kdMethods

dot oid

1.2.840.10046.5

asn1 oid

{iso(1) member-body(2) us(840) ansi-x942(10046) kdMethods(5)}

iri oid

/iso/member-body/us/ansi-x942/kdMethods

iri by oid_info

/ISO/Member-Body/US/10046/5

Description by oid_info

Key derivation method
View at oid-info.com

Information by oid_info

ANSI X9 standard "X9.42-2000, Public Key Cryptography for The Financial Services Industry: Agreement of Symmetric Keys Using Discrete Logarithm Cryptography

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

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

Olivier Dubuisson wrote:
> It looks like you did the same mistake with X9.42!!
>
>> OID : {iso(1) member-body(2) us(840) ansi-x942(10046) module(5)}
>> Description : ASN.1 module called "X9-42"
>> Information : ANSI X9 standard "X9.42-2000, Public Key Cryptography for The Financial Services Industry: Agreement of Symmetric Keys Using Discrete Logarithm Cryptography
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> OID : {iso(1) member-body(2) us(840) ansi-x942(10046) kdMethods(5)}
>> Description : Key derivation method
>> Registrant : X9F

Yes, please change
ANSI-X9-42 {iso(1) member-body(2) us(840) ansi-x942(10046) module(5) 1}
DEFINITIONS EXPLICIT TAGS ::= BEGIN
-- X9.42 Diffie-Hellman and MQV Symmetric Key Agreement
to
ANSI-X9-42 {iso(1) member-body(2) us(840) ansi-x942(10046) module(6) 1}
DEFINITIONS EXPLICIT TAGS ::= BEGIN
-- X9.42 Diffie-Hellman and MQV Symmetric Key Agreement
I'll contact by CC some X9F chairs and get them to get this changed in the next X9.42 revision.

Current Registration Authority

X9F

Children (2)

Brothers (6)