it sounds like a bug in that particular device.
it would be unlikely that htat device would be able to interoperate on
the h235 layer properly with any other implementation that does not
implement the same bug,
or maybe that vendor produces both the endpoint implementations and
dont want to interoperate and they were too lazy to allocate a proper
private enterprise oid and just picked an "impossible" itu H. oid for
their private data?
i would contact that particular vendor and see if they can address that bug.
On 8/5/05, Petr Vácha <vacha@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hello,
> sorry for offtopic, but this is last place where, I hope, can get an
> answer.
>
> We are testing one VoIP device. It uses OID 0.0.8.0.2.6 in CryptoToken as
> algorithmOID with hash length 160. This OID is unknown and AFAIK doesn't
> conform to any recommendations.
> It looks like proper H.235 OID for SHA1-96 (0.0.8.235.0.2.6). Advertised
> hash length is also not correct, H.235 recommendation forces to use 96 with
> this OID.
> I checked OID database, various websites and even contacted some vendors.
> Nobody has ever seen anything like that. Branch 0.0.8 means ITU-T H-series
> recommendation and should be followed by document's number, e.g. 235 for
> H235. In fact, 0.0.8.0 branch doesn't exist. Does somebody know what does it
> mean?
>
> Thank you very much,
> Petr Vacha
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ethereal-users mailing list
> Ethereal-users@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.ethereal.com/mailman/listinfo/ethereal-users
>