Re: [pkcs11] CKM_SEAL_KEY

[Michael StJohns <msj@nthpermutation.com>]

On 7/10/2013 4:02 PM, Tim Hudson wrote:
> 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.

You said the above.

Robert G said the below:

On 7/10/2013 10:16 AM, Griffin, Robert wrote:

> - in order to improve the likelihood of a proposal being accepted, the proposal should be complete amd unambiguous. One corollary of this is that it's in everyone's interest to help proposers by all of us reviewing proposals carefully when they're brought forward, rather than waiting until the ballot.
>
> - Proposals should not require interpretation, writing or re-writing by the editors, who should ne able to ct and paste a proposal into the appropriate docs.


That second blurb is what drives the actual format of the document.  We have no defined mechanism to add the "why" stuff to the document and thus all the discussion on the mailing list.  Would you care to suggest what I actually should have added to the documents to help with your understanding that wouldn't have conflicted with that general guidance?


I wrote the original proposal as CKA_GLOBAL, CKM_SEAL_KEY and CKM_CERTIFY_KEY along with the proposed list of global objects.  That at least read well together and explained why CKA_GLOBAL was the way it was.  After pointed comments from you, I broke it down into 4 separate documents which still described what was going on, but were less clear on their own leading to the "20 questions" as you put it.


Hmm  maybe I'll recombine all this again.

Mike