Re: [pkcs11] CKM_SEAL_KEY

[Tim Hudson <tjh@cryptsoft.com>]

On 11/07/2013 5:48 AM, Michael StJohns wrote:
> If you ask me the "why" of pretty much any proposal, the base answer
> is either "There's a bug in the spec and this is one way of fixing it"
> or "There is some capability missing that I perceive I need and this
> is one way of doing it".  Both of those are objective answers.

Both of those offer entirely no useful information as to why you hold
the view you do on the topic and what the problem is - they are asking
everyone to basically accept that you think this should be done but you
don't think you need to explain at all why you hold that view. This is a
group context and one where simple more information is necessary in
order for others to form a view point as to whether or not they share
the view you are expressing and the suitability of the solution to the
problem you are not actually describing.

It should have been very clear in the recent discussions that the view
point you were expressing was not being expressed in a manner which
allowed others to understand what problem you were trying to solve and
what problems you were also trying to avoid in your solution in order to
attempt to make it acceptable to the group as a whole. Those are all why
questions - and ones you avoided - which left everyone to guess at it
and to tease out via a game of 20 questions as to what you were trying
to achieve.

Unlike the IETF forum, OASIS operates very differently - and
specifications require actual use to be approved - along with
corresponding formal statements of use which typically involve
demonstrated interoperability between implementations and corresponding
interop testing.  All of this is in front of the group in moving to
getting v2.40 completed.

Tim.