[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [kmip] Draft response to Alexis Abell
|
Howdy KMIP TC! Tony beat me to the punch on this one â but if we want to provide some specificity on what we did starting with KMIP 1.4 Errata I have some recommended language: âThank you for your comment regarding Opaque Object revocation and Opaque Object State. Starting with KMIP 1.4 Errata and continuing in KMIP 2.0, the KMIP Technical Committee has updated the specification so that Opaque Objects follow the same guidelines for revocation as other Managed Cryptographic Objects.
Additionally, given that an Opaque Object may be a Managed Cryptographic Object (depending on the context of client usage), Opaque Objects can be treated in the same manner as other Managed Cryptographic Objects.
We hope this helps provide clarity and constancy in your continued utilization of KMIP.â My intent on the above is to help users who might be searching for this information via a web search get to a specific answer based on the question.
Hope this helps! Chuck
From: kmip@lists.oasis-open.org <kmip@lists.oasis-open.org>
On Behalf Of Tony Cox Hi folks, Please find below my proposed response to Alexis Abell for review in tomorrow's meeting. Hello Alexis, Thank you for your comment regarding Opaque object handling (https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/kmip-comment/201901/msg00000.html). The KMIP TC has reviewed your comment and elected to clarify the way in which object lifecycles are described in this particular context. These clarifications are present in KMIP v2.0 (currently being finalized). Further the KMIP TC has elected to publish
an errata for KMIP v1.4 specifically to reflect these changes. Best Regards Cheers,
--
Tony Cox
VP Partners, Alliances & Standards
P: +61 7 3103 0321, US: +1 (650) 918 4307 |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]