OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

pkcs11 message

[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


On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 05:11:54PM -0700, Valerie Fenwick wrote:
> We have found from our experience with our last go round that
> waiting until just before the specification is ratified was too
> late. 

I'm not suggesting that anyone wait until just before the spec is ratified.
I'm saying something like the following:

(1)  Someone proposes an addition
(2)  They write it up without an identifier
(3)  They submit it to the TC
(4)  The TC reviews and puts it to a ballot
(5)  If it gets approved, it gets inserted into the draft and assigned an identifier at that time

This is a long time before anything moves towards official spec ratification.  Why would anyone add
something to an implementation before #5 though?  What if it doesn't pass?

> 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.

Because, as Mark J. has also noted -- what happens to identifiers that don't pass?
Why even make this problem at all?

Also, why do chairs pick identifier numbers?  That's an editorial (as in those who maintain the docs and files)
function in my view.  If the chairs want to also be editors though, that can make sense I suppose.

> 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.

Assigning the number after the proposal passes ballot doesn't hold up what you're saying here at all.
Adding something pre-ballot passing though, in my view, is done entirely at your own risk.

--Chris

> 
> 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.
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]