Re: [kmip] Client Registration

[Tim Hudson <tjh@cryptsoft.com>]

Bob (Griffin), I'd like to put on the agenda for the next meeting that we vote
to defer the Entity and Client registration proposals for KMIP 1.1 and focus on
sorting out the more direct need for device registration (or Delegators in a
Proxy Passthrough using the terminology from Stan's presentation).

As Denis and others have indicated, we have more questions than answers at this
stage around the Entity proposals.

The broader context of ownership and access controls and the relationship
between Entity and Group and how to map the various vendor models of user and
groups and access control remains a larger work item that is able to fit within
the scope of KMIP 1.1 as evidenced by the the continued outstanding items around
the discussions we have had to date on the proposal.

Currently, KMIP 1.0 avoids the entire topic as 'owner' is not visible outside of
the server internal context.
I don't think that it is unreasonable for KMIP 1.1 to continue to take the same
approach.

This way we can focus our collective attention on the work items already in
rough consensus and work towards at the required three vendor implementations
and interoperability so we can achieve statements of use within a reasonable
time frame.

It would also make sense to place sorting this area out as a high priority item
for KMIP 2.0

Thanks,
Tim.