RE: [kmip] Groups - VendorExtensionProposal-v2.1.doc uploaded

["Fitzgerald, Indra" <indra.fitzgerald@hp.com>]

Hi Tim,

I must have missed the update on your proposal.

I actually prefer a new structure and was initially going to suggest it. I wasn't sure whether there was a previously discussed reason for reusing the Attribute structure.

-Indra

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Hudson [mailto:tjh@cryptsoft.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 10:58 PM
To: kmip@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc: Fitzgerald, Indra
Subject: Re: [kmip] Groups - VendorExtensionProposal-v2.1.doc uploaded

On 18/05/2011 11:04 AM, Fitzgerald, Indra wrote:
> Hi Tim,
> 
> In your proposal you are suggesting to use the Attribute object structure to return the extension name (Attribute Name) and the corresponding Tag value (Attribute Value). Instead of using the Attribute Value for the Tag Value, could we not add Tag Value to the Attribute structure and not require the Attribute Value to be returned during Query?

As mentioned two TC calls ago the feedback so far has been to introduce a new
structure rather than to re-use the Attribute structure. I plan to put out an
update with that change and a few other topics suggested but essentially
sticking with the basic functionality and within the existing Query operation.

Would that approach address the issue from your point of view?

Thanks,
Tim.