[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [pkcs11] Groups - Ballot reminder: "Proposal for changes to DSA mechanism"
On 12/09/2013 2:37 AM, Michael StJohns wrote: > That document should not have gone to ballot and should not have been > passed because of the group agreement on backwards compatibility, but > was passed against the rules. You'd be more than a little incorrect there Mike. The group passes by ballot whatever the group wants to pass by ballot. That is the OASIS rule. The TC can vote to have additional standing rules in place but has not done so. We have some items we have discussed as a group as objectives/guidelines - but nothing formal in place. I suggest you actually go and read the TC process rules as they are how all OASIS technical committees operate. I noted explicitly that I thought the backwards compatibility issue should be addressed but still voted for the proposal as-is (as did others) because even without that addressed it made sense to progress forward (in my view and that of others as well). That ballot passed. This new proposal was meant to address that specific item and to update references to FIPS184-6 [not FIPS186-4 as in your email]. It goes beyond that. It is certainly not what it was presented as doing. The ballot was not formed as a complete "replacement" - that is not what the motion was or the ballot text - it was meant to address only those items previously raised. On the size issue - FIPS184 has always had specific values listed and not a range - and the range has always been in PKCS#11 as an API allowing for a full range of usage and not just the specific limits noted in FIPS184 - conformance to the various FIPS requirements is something done over and above what is in PKCS#11 - we haven't wired in those limitations previously (in this area) nor do I think we should start doing that now, especially in a proposal which was meant to be addressing references and a SUBPRIME backwards compatibility issue. If you want to make a change like this is should be brought before the group and discussed and noted explicitly - not placed in a proposal as yet another "fix" - I doubt anyone was expecting that sort of change to go in. We also did discussed leaving out the manifest constant values and just placing in markers for the editor to allocate values - but this isn't what you did - you for some reason I simply don't follow (at the moment) included some list which is incorrect. I took the effort of actually looking at the list and comparing it. It is incomplete and incorrect in quite a few places. It is not a matter of the editor allocating some values - it is a matter of the editors needing to completely ignore it. That's a different topic. Tim.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]