[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [kmip] Broader View of Conformance
I can’t say I disagree with the points being made. I think it all goes down to the goal of the
I in KMIP, how interoperable do we want to make it? Interoperable in a
vertical segment or horizontal across the enterprise? I think what we are
leaning toward the former at the expense of the latter. The banking scenario is a valid use case. I think if we
went with one minimum server profile we may risk imposing a high cost for
development and conformance or the risk of implementations splintering off from
the standard. If we implement multiple profiles we risk having a
splintered standard, and multiple KMIP standards to chose from. One option is to limit the profiles to a very small number (2 or
3) with little-or-no option for adding more (at least in 1.0). I think it
would be important to define a full conformance profile (to the minimum as Todd
mentioned) such that no subset profile will require more (to ensure fully
conforming servers support all sub-profiles). This may be improved
with defining two classes of conformance being “full conformance” and
the rest being “profile conformance”, so that the consumers are
very aware of their purchase. To the comment about switching over from one KMIP Server to
another, I agree with the challenges in server specific designs and I’ll
add that corporate inertia may also go against changing out functioning solutions.
Thanks, Jay Jacobs From: Todd Arnold
[mailto:arnoldt@us.ibm.com]
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]