RE: Summary of KMIP Entity Discussion 1/20/2011

[Somanchi Trinath-B22327 <B22327@freescale.com>]

Hi-

With respect to the Asymmetric Key users cases present in http://interop.cryptsoft.com/kmip_uc/, I have the following queries.
[1] Use case 13.1, section Time 0 IN, Private and Public Key pair are created at a time. 
	[a] But then after several operations are done, at section Time 10 IN to Time 11 out, why both parts of the key are destroyed separately. 
	[b] It can be like if Private Key is destroyed; its corresponding Public Key can is also destroyed. 
	[c] Also if there is any Certificate linked to the Public Key, then what is the use of that certificate when Private and Public keys are destroyed?


Trinath Somanchi,
trinath.somanchi@freescale.com , +919 866 235 130
Trinath somanchi

-----Original Message-----
From: Frindell, Alan [mailto:Alan.Frindell@safenet-inc.com] 
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 11:49 PM
To: kmip@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [kmip] Summary of KMIP Entity Discussion 1/20/2011

All, I've summarized our discussion from today.  Please post any feedback on the reflector this week and I will incorporate that into a proposal draft before the face to face.

Thanks

-Alan

We discussed the two different credential options, one that is a bit clunky yet backwards compatible, and another that is simpler but incompatible.  Tim asked that we discuss protocol versioning in greater depth at the face to face.  Hal pointed out that because the difference is largely one of format rather than semantics, it should not be difficult for a v2 server or client to support both formats.  I will draft the proposal with the simpler format pending the versioning discussion at the face to face.

Hal and I are still working through all the possible enumerations for authentication.  I will try to wrap this discussion up by next week.  The draft proposal should have both the enumerations and a description of how the client/server should interpret the 'Value' parts of the structure for the defined enums.

I will not include Archive Date and the associated operations for Entity.  I will include Object Group.  I'm looking for feedback on how to handle the two different kinds of operation policies for Entities - specifically do we need a new attribute, or can we re-use an existing attribute?

I will update the Default Operation Policy for Entity Objects to not include owner/creator references, but instead refer to the entity itself.  For example, by default, an Entity may only perform Get, Modify or Delete on its own Entity record.

The group felt it was OK to exclude Entity Registration from the Default Entity Operation Policy.

I think there was a consensus to use the Entity UUID as the Creator or Owner, but I will leave this for the Access Control proposal.

We decided not to restrict the number of subjects of a given type per Entity.  This may make for some odd edge cases, but should be sufficient for the common use cases and prevents us from having to solve complex questions like 'What is a user'.


The information contained in this electronic mail transmission may be privileged and confidential, and therefore, protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to this message and deleting it from your computer without copying or disclosing it.

 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php