RE: [kmip] Cryptographic Services Proposal - Next Steps

[John Leiseboer <jl@quintessencelabs.com>]

>> You clearly do not understand my "get random" proposal
> I suggest you keep your unfounded personal accusations and comments off
> the list.
My regrets for anything in my email that came across as a personal attack. Nothing like that was intended.

I took offence at, "John is talking about an  entirely different set of capabilities - none of which are [sic] required or necessary for your use case." I did, and still do, believe this to be untrue.

The Q'Labs proposal treats random as a Managed Cryptographic Object. This provides nothing substantially different (arguably with the exception of support for unspecified length) for a Random Object to the other managed cryptographic objects already specified in the standard.

John Leiseboer