OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

kmip message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Re: [kmip] Groups - kmip-tape-lib-profile-v1 0-wd01-review.doc uploaded


> According to the spec, this means solely that the server is capable of
filling in an Application Specific Information attribute with
> info if the client passes in LIBRARY-LTO as the namespace and an empty
info field

Bruce, where do you think the specification actually states that?

What the specification states is that if a server "supports" an
application name space then it shall be returned in the query operation.
It does not state that the server shall not return the application name
space in Query where the client is providing the information.

In 3.36 - the definition of ASI:

"In that case, if the server supports this namespace (as indicated by
the Query operation in Section 4.25), then it SHALL return a suitable
Application Data value."

In 12.1 - the definition of Query:

"The Application Namespace fields in the response contain the namespaces
that the server SHALL generate values for if requested by the client
(see Section 3.36)."

Nothing in either of those sections state what you are indicating. I can
see how you get there reading between the lines.

However, in the context of this profile is making it clear that this is
a requirement on servers when conforming to this profile to report the
application name spaces listed within the profile.

Whether or not that is a requirement in the base specification is an
interesting discussion - however in profiles we state the actual
conformance clauses - which can (and are) narrower than the
specification text. That is the purpose of the profiles - to make the
behaviours clear. A server can conform to the specification and not
conform to a given profile.

It's great to have your feedback on this - it would have been useful to
have had that feedback earlier - as that aspect of the profile is
unchanged from the earlier versions uploaded back in April.  It however
tends to indicate that there are interpretations of the base
specification in this area which may need to be expanded.
It doesn't impact the profile itself.

Tim.



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]