Re: [kmip] Discussion on Conformance

[Sean Turner <turners@ieca.com>]

Zelechoski, Peter wrote:
> I believe there is a need for the ability to know if a server is
> compliant to KMIP for the type of key exchange needed.  

There's two ways we can communicate a server's support for a particular 
profile: out-of-band or in-band.  Is the intention that this always be 
an out-of-band mechanism because I didn't see a mechanism for client 
discovery of a server's support for particular features?

> If my client needs to interact for symmetric keys, I need to know the
> server is KMIP compliant for symmetric key functions.  So, from a
> conformance clause, there needs to be a way to indicate what constitutes
> the minimum set of functions the server must support in order to make
> the claim of "conformant".
> 
> Likewise, we need a profile for asymmetric key conformance.  So those
> clients needing an asymmetric key server know if it is compliant.
> 
> There may be other subsets that make sense as a minimum conformance
> profile.
> 
> The ability for a server to claim conformance for the superset is always
> available.  And, the server implementation could claim conformance for
> each of the minimum profiles if it had each.
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php 
> 
>