On 26/07/2013 10:47 AM, John Leiseboer wrote:
In your previous arguments – the ones that perhaps
swayed people to vote in favour of the crypto operations
proposal – you very strongly asserted that your proposal was
strictly in line with the existing “model” for Crypto
Parameters.
The Cryptographic Parameters associated attribute is entirely under
the control of the client - it can be added, modified and deleted.
It can be present, be not present, and have multiple values. That is
how it always has been in KMIP 1.0 and KMIP 1.1. Nothing you've
stated over the last year on this topic overcomes that fundamental
fact. The changes in the specification were done with explicit text
to note the behaviour (based on your feedback) and discussed at
length prior to the ballot.
It is not a mistake - it isn't unclear text - it isn't open to
multiple interpretations. It just happens to not be what you believe
should be in place.
The tests we have in place during interop can always be improved and
expanded - and in fact they have been substantially expanded in KMIP
1.2 and we have added tests for functionality that has been defined
since 1.0 and never have had test cases. We still have functionality
that was defined in KMIP 1.0 which has no tests, and we also have
functionality within KMIP 1.0 that no one has yet implemented. All
of these are items we can continue to work on as we improve things.
None of these however are reasons to hold up KMIP 1.2 - as if you
accepted the argument you are making then we still would not have a
KMIP 1.0.
A number of TC members have invested heavily in producing test
cases, and a larger number of members have committed substantial
resources to the two rounds of interop testing we are doing every
year - all of those help make KMIP the interoperable key management
standard that it is and differentiate KMIP from other standards (and
OASIS from other standards bodies). If you want to invest
Quintessence Labs resources in contributing more test cases I'm sure
the TC would welcome that (I know we as a TC member we certainly
would). However none of that is anything to do with whether or not
KMIP 1.2 is ready. It has been reviewed and interop tested well
beyond any prior version of KMIP to date.
Tim.
|