[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [pkcs11] Re: [GRAYMAIL] [pkcs11] Proposal: Standing Rule for Identifier Allocation
I'm sorry if I'm just not getting it, but I'm not sure how this causes additional work for the editors. It should hopefully be cut-and-paste, for just the identifiers. I know the rest the prose often need a lot more massaging to get them to fit correctly in the document, have correct grammar, spelling, and to be in the right section, but I don't recall even the identifier names changing after a ballot.
This is more so that what goes through the ballot, which people certainly do reference while they are waiting for a new version of the standard to come out, is correct.
Valerie On 6/6/2016 4:57 PM, Chris Zimman wrote:
Not into this at all. As I've said numerous times, you're just making unnecessary work for the editors by doing this. Why assign a number before it passes ballot? I have a very hard time buying that anyone is going to include anything in their P11 implementation before it even passes ballot or voice vote. To me, it makes no more sense than allowing submissions to specify their section or page numbers. For the avoidance of doubt, my suggestion was that the numbering is done by the editors after the suggested text passes ballot, but before ratification of the final spec. --Chris On Jun 6, 2016 7:44 PM, "Valerie Fenwick" <valerie.fenwick@oracle.com <mailto:valerie.fenwick@oracle.com>> wrote: Yes and no. They could go unused forever, but we already have gaps in our constant identifiers, probably for similar reasons. They would not be "allocated", as that previous thing would not exist in the standard. There's always a risk, that some vendor may much very very quickly, even though was are approved and did not end up in the standard. That is why that I left it to cochairs discretion on whether or not to reallocate the numbers Make sense? Valerie On 6/6/2016 4:34 PM, Mark Joseph wrote: So if a proposal is rejected its constants could still remain allocated right? Why would we want that? Best, Mark Joseph P6R, Inc 408-205-0361 <tel:408-205-0361> mark@p6r.com <mailto:mark@p6r.com> On Jun 6, 2016, at 4:23 PM, Valerie Fenwick <valerie.fenwick@oracle.com <mailto:valerie.fenwick@oracle.com>> wrote: Hi folks! Here is my rough draft of a standing rule proposal. PKCS11 Technical Committee Standing Rule on Identifier Allocation The PKCS11 technical specifications have several constants defined throughout the standard. Those constants are then used to create the header files for each version of the standard. There is a need for these values to be stable in order to maintain compatibility between various versions of the standard, and interoperability between various vendors and applications. To assist developers who are working on testing new additions to the standard and for interoperability testing, it is important to stabilize the identifiers used for these constants as early in the process as possible. After a proposal has gone through its review process, but before it goes to ballot or voice vote, the proposal author(s) should seek identifier values for all of their constants from the technical committee co-chairs before the ballot is opened. If a proposal is not approved by the technical committee, it will be the co-chairs discretion whether or not to reuse those constant identifier values for a future proposal. Section 2.9 of the TC process covers these rules, see this link for more details: https://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/tc-process#procedure Thank you for your review! Valerie -- Note: I am using voice recognition software. Forgive any strange words. Valerie Fenwick, http://bubbva.blogspot.com/ @bubbva Solaris Cryptographic & Key Management Technologies, Manager Oracle Corporation: 4180 Network Circle, Santa Clara, CA, 95054. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php -- Note: I am using voice recognition software. Forgive any strange words. Valerie Fenwick, http://bubbva.blogspot.com/ @bubbva Solaris Cryptographic & Key Management Technologies, Manager Oracle Corporation: 4180 Network Circle, Santa Clara, CA, 95054. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
-- Note: I am using voice recognition software. Forgive any strange words. Valerie Fenwick, http://bubbva.blogspot.com/ @bubbva Solaris Cryptographic & Key Management Technologies, Manager Oracle Corporation: 4180 Network Circle, Santa Clara, CA, 95054.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]