Re: [kmip] Groups - kmip-tape-lib-profile-v1 0-wd02.doc uploaded

[Tim Hudson <tjh@cryptsoft.com>]

On 9/08/2013 8:34 AM, Michael Stevens wrote:
> The first case in this document is to send a Query on operations and objects supported. According to the new section 4, the response to the operation shall not vary; In particular, and server that supports more than the bare minimum of operations does not, as written, support this profile. I do not think this is intended behaviour. An addition to section 4.2.1 is clearly needed.
>
> Apparently, a server compliant with this profile must, by default, give all new created keys an attribute of Lease Time with a value of 3600, as the Get Attributes is not one of the permitted variations in section 4. That's a remarkably specific behaviour to hide in a test case, and should be documented elsewhere in the profile. Indeed, the Lease Time attribute is not even listed as SHALL support in Section 2.2. If the intent of section 4 is to make use cases normative over the list items in section 2, that is a very dramatic change indeed, and requires further discussion.

The test case for Query explicitly notes"Determine server configuration
details including operations supported (only the mandatory operations
are listed in the response example), objects supported (only the
mandatory objects types are listed in the response example), optional
server information, and optional list of application name spaces.". If
you feel this should also be explicitly noted in 4.2 then that can be
added there as well.

It was not intended that the Lease Time value be limited to a specific
value - we discussed this during interop - where vendors return
different values (this being configurable in most servers) - but it is
required that it be supported (as that is in the base specification).

Thanks for reviewing in that level of detail Michael - it is a good
catch to note that.

I believe adding a clarification to that effect by noting it within
section 4.2 (Query responses, and Lease Time values) should be able to
be done within the scope of the existing motions to go to ballot and to
have the ballot reference an updated document - but I will hold off on
updating the documents pending any other feedback today.

Did you have any other items of feedback on this or the other profiles
(noting that your comments on this profile apply equally to the other
profile documents which include the test case variations section).

Thanks,
Tim.