Re: [kmip] Groups - proposal_for_attribute_index-v1.doc uploaded

[Tim Hudson <tjh@cryptsoft.com>]

On 24/08/2011 7:26 AM, Bruce Rich wrote:

OFBA28154B.309AE5C5-ON862578F5.00753F93-862578F5.0075C6C7@us.ibm.com" type="cite"> Hmm, what do we do for the Custom Attributes ("x-*" and "y-*")?  For the y-*, the server should know whether they are multi-valued, so can know whether or not to return a 0 index for the first/only instance.  But for custom client attributes, the server doesn't know that it's multi-valued until the second AddAttribute for the same x- name.

I think we may need to assume that custom client attributes are always multi-valued and thus the server always includes an index for x- attributes

The attribute index handling should be identical for all attributes - entirely independent of whether they are custom attributes or multi-valued.

There are a couple of choices:
- either an index value shall always be provided; or
- if an index value is not present it shall be assumed to be '0'

That's how it should be handled in all contexts - a rather simple rule.

The whole approach of having different rules for how to handle is what the proposal is about addressing - to get back to a simple situation - and one where there is a chance that implementations will actually be able to match the specification :-)

Tim.