RE: Two proposals

[<Larry.Hofer@Emulex.Com>]

Hi Bob,
Looks like the right direction to go to me. Would we not also address the client side or will that be addressed in the appropriate profiles?

Regards,
Larry H

-----Original Message-----
From: robert.griffin@rsa.com [mailto:robert.griffin@rsa.com] 
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 9:19 AM
To: kmip@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [kmip] Two proposals

Hi -

In our call yesterday I offered to take a first cut at re-wording section 10 to accommodate KMIP implementations that cannot support TCP. I suggest we consider the following (with thanks to TimH for his help with this);

"10 A KMIP server SHALL establish and maintain confidentiality and integrity, and provide assurance of server authenticity for KMIP messaging, as specified in KMIP Profiles."

I think taking this approach is more in synch with our intent in the Profiles document. Please send around your comments/suggestions/criticisms to the reflector! I'd like to discuss this on our next call and consider either a ballot or voice vote on the change. 

I think we should also consider removing Section 9.2 from the specification. This is the forward-looking statement about XML representation of the protocol. Given that we have deferred XML out of V1.1 and do not have a commitment to support alternative representations in a later version of the standard, I don"t think we should include such a statement in the normative document. So I propose the following;

"Delete section 9.2 from the KMIP V1.1 Specification".

Again, please send around any comments/issues on this proposal. I'd like to discuss it and consider a voice or ballot vote on our next call.

Thanks!

Bob
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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