OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

kmip message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: FW: [kmip-comment] Comments for KMIP Specification 1.0 Committee Draft 10 / Public Review 02 18 March 2010


hi -

we'll review these comments (at least at a high-level) in our call
today.

regards,

Bob

-----Original Message-----
From: Tony.Stieber@wellsfargo.com [mailto:Tony.Stieber@wellsfargo.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 9:42 PM
To: kmip-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [kmip-comment] Comments for KMIP Specification 1.0 Committee
Draft 10 / Public Review 02 18 March 2010

Comments for KMIP Specification 1.0 Committee Draft 10 / Public Review
02 18 March 2010

1.1 Terminology 
Although SP800-57-1 is referenced for definitions, the document's own
Appendix D is not.

p9
"Digest (or hash)" is defined using "hash function" which itself is not
defined nor used elsewhere in the document.

"Hashing algorithm" may also be known as "hash algorithm" or "hash
function". Cryptographically hash functions have several secure if they
have the described properties and 

p10
"Key management" is defined using "IV" which itself is not defined under
terminology but is in Appendix D.

"Key wrapping (wrapping)" is a method of encrypting and/or
MACing/signing keys using a cryptographic algorithm (not key).
Alternatively use SP800-57-1 "A method of encrypting keys (along with
associated integrity information) that provides both confidentiality and
integrity protection using a symmetric key."

2 Objects
Line 184
A reference to "9.1.1.4 Item Value" where the object primitive object
types are defined would be very useful.

Line 237
Strike "typically" and add "and as large as 15,360 bits". Examples
should not merely be typical, but also indicate edge cases; examples are
often used as real world test cases and thus become part of the
specification. Although some key lengths are less common, KMIP should
still be able to support them.
Line 238
TDES keys range from 112 to 192 bits (depending upon key length and the
presence of parity bits).

Line 239
AES keys are exactly 128, 192, or 256 bits in length. Examples should
not merely be typical, but also indicate edge cases; examples are often
used as real world test cases and thus become part of the specification.
Although some key lengths are less common, KMIP should still be able to
support them.

Line 459 2.2.7 Secret Data
Although secret data can be stored, there seems to be no provision for
generation of secret data. How would arbitrary random data be created?

Line 552
First instance of "PGP" is used, which may refer to a company, product,
or protocol. The term "OpenPGP" refers to the IETF protocol standard in
RFC 4880. Note that OpenPGP uses both binary and ASCII encoded format,
either one or the other should be specified, or a mechanism for
detecting or specifying both are needed. See also lines 562, 1117, 1134,
1757, 1790, 2036

Line 592
In the future if the SHA-256 requirement must be changed, how would it
be specified and still retain backwards compatibility?

Line 1355 Table 155: Destroy Response Payload
Does a response imply that the object has been destroyed, or does the
Result Reason clarify? Operational system may need significant time to
destroy all copies of an object, especially those which were written to
off-line storage. Some operational systems may not be able to destroy an
object at all due to system limitations, such as write-only storage. If
a server can attempt but cannot guarantee Destroy, how should it
respond, Operation Pending/Feature not supported? If the server
eventually succeeds should it respond as Success/Operation not
supported? Lack of guaranteed Destroy is in conflict with the Line 1346
SHALL requirement, but it would still be useful to be able to attempt
Destroy.

Line 1693 
A single bit error in a Boolean value may result a valid, but incorrect
value. Consider setting multiple bits to indicate values, such as adding
parity bits.

Line 1697
Are nulls allowed at all? If not then it should be stated. A note about
illegal UTF-8 encodings such as CO 80 as implemented in Java and other
languages may be prudent as well. 

Line 1703
Consider encoding Intervals as Long Integers to match Date-Time values
to avoid type conversion when doing offsets.

1769 9.1.3.2.12 Cryptographic Algorithm Enumeration
Consider adding standardized symmetric ciphers such as Blowfish,
Camellia, CAST5, RC2, RC4, Twofish, and the Elgamal encryption public
key cipher. OpenPGP and TLS support most of these ciphers.

Line 1771 9.1.3.2.13 Block Cipher Mode Enumeration
CFB has variants. For example OpenSSL implements CFB1, CFB8, and CFB128
which is related using a shift register size for self-synchronization.
http://www.openssl.org/docs/apps/enc.html

Line 1757 9.1.3.2.6 Certificate Type Enumeration
Consider adding SSH. Although SSH doesn't use certificates, it is a
public key cryptographic system and some metadata is present in the
public key.

Line 1775 9.1.3.2.15 Hashing Algorithm Enumeration
Consider adding MDC2, RIPE-MD/160, Tiger, Whirlpool. Although these hash
algorithms are less common, they are found in some environments.

Line 2036 PGP - Pretty Good Privacy specified in RFC 1991
RFC 1991 is now obsolete and has been replaced with OpenPGP RFC 4880
(via RFC 2440). Note also that "PGP", "Pretty Good", and "Pretty Good
Privacy" are trademarks of PGP Corporation. OpenPGP refers to the IETF
protocol standard.

Line 2055 UTC
UTC in English means "Coordinated Universal Time" not "Universal Time,
Coordinated" which is an unofficial backronym. See
http://www.nist.gov/physlab/div847/utcnist.cfm for an explanation under
the question "Why is UTC used as the acronym for Coordinated Universal
Time instead of CUT?

Line 2056 UTF
UTF-8 is specified in RFC 3629. By itself "UTF" is one of many Unicode
transformational formats including UTF-8, UTF-16, UTF-32 which are very
different from each other.

--
Tony Stieber, Enterprise Security Architecture Team  
TGS - ESAT                  This message may contain confidential
tony.stieber@wellsfargo.com and/or privileged information. If you
tel:+1-612-667-4366         are not the addressee or authorized to
fax:+1-612-667-7037         receive this for the addressee, you must
MAC N9301-01J               not use, copy, disclose, or take any
Minneapolis, MN 55479 USA   action based on this message or any
255 2nd Avenue South        information herein. If you have received
OpenPGP SHA1 fingerprint    this message in error, please advise the
7EE5 B722 66FB 5960 2AAA    sender immediately by reply e-mail and
2961 2FC0 1A80 1891 1480    delete this message. Thank you for your
------------------------    cooperation.



-- 
This publicly archived list offers a means to provide input to the
OASIS Key Management Interoperability Protocol (KMIP) TC.

In order to verify user consent to the Feedback License terms and
to minimize spam in the list archive, subscription is required
before posting.

Subscribe: kmip-comment-subscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
Unsubscribe: kmip-comment-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
List help: kmip-comment-help@lists.oasis-open.org
List archive: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/kmip-comment/
Feedback License: http://www.oasis-open.org/who/ipr/feedback_license.pdf
List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php
Committee:
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=kmip




[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]