[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [kmip] Groups - CryptoParamsEnforcement uploaded
Just to make it abundantly clear - this proposal is suggesting text which directly conflicts with an already accepted and balloted item which has been included in the specification working drafts. It also conflicts with the stated way things are handled within KMIP for Cryptographic Parameters and attempts to enforce a behaviour which conflicts with the specification text and the usage guide for all existing versions of KMIP. It also fundamentally changes the purpose of Cryptographic Parameters within the specification. If any other vendor feels that we need to change direction on this then they need to speak up (a request which has been repeated multiple times over the last 11 months that John has been suggesting that we need to change how Cryptographic Parameters are handled). I don't believe there is any support for such a proposal within the TC (I've received no indication of such either on or off the list and substantial confirmation off list that this suggested change is simply not supported). If there are other vendors who wish to support this proposal from John then we will respond with a detailed critique of the errors within that proposal - but otherwise we will simply continue to assume that there is no support for John's regularly repeated request for a change of direction on this topic. We have discussed this topic at length multiple times, and continuing to raise the same issue which has already been discussed and a balloted and incorporated in the specification absent strong multiple vendor support seems very much at odds with the process we have been following for decision making. We don't always agree on topics - but once a decision has been made for a given version it takes pretty extraordinary circumstances and clear multi-vendor support to change direction for a given release. We also have a clear mechanism defined for handling behaviours that are not something that fit within the base specification - and that is one of profiles - and that is the right way to address suggestions for mandatory behaviour enforcement that are not supported by the TC for being in the specification. Thanks, Tim.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]