X9CM OIDs belong ISO (1) not JOINT_ISO_ITU_T (2)

[naveedpash]

https://github.com/XAMPPRocky/rasn/blob/8f3a6731283bf4102ad9bd774b97bd69ec241c5e/src/types/oid.rs#L352

Hey, I am trying to implement ITU-T X.227 (ISO Association Control Service Element). Part of it requires me to write down the following OID:
joint-iso-itu-t(2) association-control(2) as-id(3) acse-ase(1) version(1)

So I decided to add it to your src/types/oid.rs file in then import it into my own crate (that I'm putting in the standards folder for a pull request later). That's when I noticed that a block of OIDs for X9-CM (or X9.57) is incorrectly written under root OID JOINT_ISO_ITU_T(2). I think it should be under ISO(1).

Here is the reference for my belief: Reference record for OID 1.2.840.10040.2.

Let me know if this is correct, I'll be happy to draw up a pull request.

[XAMPPRocky]

Thank you for your issue! It might be that it’s registered under both, because looking at RFC 5280 (the RFC where these OIDs came from), it’s under 2, 2. I would accept a PR adding the ISO versions of these OIDs.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5280

[naveedpash]

Ok, I'll submit one but just to be sure:
I can also add the OIDs of my interest from this arc:
joint-iso-itu-t(2) association-control(2) as-id(3) acse-ase(1) version(1)
without conflicting with the existing OIDs?

Meaning

oids! {
  JOINT_ISO_ITU_T_MEMBER_BODY => 2, 2;
}

would not conflict with

oids! {
  JOINT_ISO_ITU_T_ASSOCIATION_CONTROL => 2, 2;
}

right?

I think it should be fine because who ever uses your library just needs to import the correct arcs and use them...

[XAMPPRocky]

Yeah it should be fine, we don't actually ensure the tree is unique IIRC

[naveedpash]

I've run into a bunch of these OIDs during my project,
I'll give a pull request once I've done gathered as many as necessary.