Re: [ekmi] is this TC dead?

[Tomas Gustavsson <tomas@primekey.se>]

Hi,

I have a hard time simply accepting KMIP as a de facto binary standard 
for the moment. Especially for the PKI parts, that there is plenty of in 
KMIP that is not in EKMI (a good thing with EKMI imho). There are 
already several both formal and de facto standards widely used standards 
in that area. The first ones that come to mind are SCEP, CMP and CMC.
I think that's a huge uphill for KMIP and I envision that they will 
profile KMIP to not require the PKI parts as mandatory. Because why 
would a company (say cisco) invest in replacing working SCEP protocol 
with KMIP for PKI provisioning?

I'm not saying that KMIP will die and EKMI prevail or anything, I just 
don't think it's that simple.

EKMI have added value in that it's targeted to, relatviely easily, 
secure enterprise applications. With audit guidelines etc.
It still feals that the target audience for the different protocols are 
quite different, and a hammer is not always the right tool for the job.
Therefore I'm prepared to give a little more time to EKMI.

I'm hoping that KMIP will do a good work as well, only time will tell.

Kind regards,
Tomas


Benjamin Tomhave wrote:
> Ha, well. If we could have meetings once in a while, I might actually make
> it back to Voting Member status... ;)
> 
> In all seriousness, I'm not 100% convinced that this committee should
> exist, at least not as it's currently defined and designed... IF you were
> to accept that KMIP will be the de facto binary standard, and IF you
> accept that .3 will deploy an XML standard that directly correlates to
> KMIP, THEN it does not seem to make sense to continue down this XML
> standard path. Why build a competing standard when it will not have the
> necessary big-vendor backing to achieve prevalence, and thus success?
> 
> EKMI conceptually is very good. Assuming the protocol standards are
> "handled," where can we then add value? I think this is a question that
> should be seriously and soberly discussed. As it stands today, we appear
> to lack adequate backing.
> 
> fwiw.
> 
> -ben
> 
> On Mon, June 15, 2009 6:16 pm, Anil Saldhana wrote:
>> Hi Ben,
>>   the work done is here:
>> http://docs.oasis-open.org/ekmi/sksml/v1.0/pr01/SKSML-1.0-Specification.html
>>
>> What is needed is to get to the 3 implementations whose conformance will
>> drive the 1.0 specification to public standard....  :)
>>
>> The odds may be stacked at us. It does not mean we are in a rat race to
>> get to public standard. For that to happen, we need conforming
>> implementations.
>>
>> I do recommend you to take up an official role with EKMI (maybe a second
>> secretary?) or an editor role to actually move this TC forward.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Anil
>>
>> Benjamin Tomhave wrote:
>>> No visual project in nearly 2 months while other committees in the same
>>> realm is hardly sensationalizing. ;) If this committee wants to survive
>>> and be taken seriously, then serious work must be conducted. Or, the
>>> committee should just concede loss and fold. As it is, the odds are
>>> strongly stacked against us under the current strategy. If we cannot get
>>> all the major players onboard and actively engaged, then we need to take
>>> stock of the work being done and decide whether or not what we're doing
>>> is
>>> the right thing.
>>>
>>> fwiw.
>>>
>>> -ben
>>>
>>> On Mon, June 15, 2009 5:25 pm, Anil Saldhana wrote:
>>>
>>>> I was going to send an email soon (not on the death of the TC) but with
>>>> updates.
>>>>
>>>> I am still learning - do not procrastinate sending emails in this
>>>> global
>>>> world. :)
>>>>
>>>> While you are at it, can you tell me why you derive such immense
>>>> pleasure in sensationalizing things via emails? ;)
>>>>
>>>> Benjamin Tomhave wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm just wondering... there's been no activity on the main list here
>>>>> since
>>>>> April. I've not seen anything on a monthly call. Is there anything
>>>>> going
>>>>> on? Or is this TC dead. If it's dead, then perhaps someone should
>>>>> alert
>>>>> OASIS so that they can call the coroner for cleanup.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>
>>>>> -ben
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
> 
>