Re: KMIP 2.1 test case TC-ASYNC-5-21

[Tim Hudson <tjh@cryptsoft.com>]

ASYNCHRONOUS_CORRELATION_VALUE_0 and ASYNCHRONOUS_CORRELATION_VALUE are entirely semantically equivalent.

I will update that in the next release - but unless there are semantic changes I'll hold off on a new zip file.

Tim.

ÂÂ

On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 6:36 AM Mark Joseph <mark@p6r.com> wrote:

Another minor issue see below

<ResponseMessage>

 <ResponseHeader>

  <ProtocolVersion>

   <ProtocolVersionMajor type="Integer" value="2"/>

   <ProtocolVersionMinor type="Integer" value="1"/>

  </ProtocolVersion>

  <TimeStamp type="DateTime" value="$NOW"/>

  <BatchCount type="Integer" value="1"/>

 </ResponseHeader>

 <BatchItem>

  <Operation type="Enumeration" value="Archive"/>

  <ResultStatus type="Enumeration" value="OperationPending"/>

  <AsynchronousCorrelationValue type="ByteString" value="$ASYNCHRONOUS_CORRELATION_VALUE_0"/>

 </BatchItem>

</ResponseMessage>

<RequestMessage>

 <RequestHeader>

  <ProtocolVersion>

   <ProtocolVersionMajor type="Integer" value="2"/>

   <ProtocolVersionMinor type="Integer" value="1"/>

  </ProtocolVersion>

  <ClientCorrelationValue type="TextString" value="TC-ASYNC-5-21 step=2"/>

  <BatchCount type="Integer" value="1"/>

 </RequestHeader>

 <BatchItem>

  <Operation type="Enumeration" value="Process"/>

  <RequestPayload>

   <AsynchronousCorrelationValue type="ByteString" value="$ASYNCHRONOUS_CORRELATION_VALUE"/>  Âshould have "_0" at the endÂ

  </RequestPayload>

 </BatchItem>

</RequestMessage>

Best,

Mark Joseph

P6R, Inc

408-205-0361