RE: PKCS#11 review comments for base spec 3.0 WD05 and curr 3.0 WD06

Darren, all,

I agree to most of Darren’s comments, and some of the ones in base WD05 are already fixed with my interfaces/function lists proposal.

However, in your proposal for paragraph 3534-3537 the use of curveName is equivalent to an OID. Shall we really propagate the use of plain text names? I don’t know all the specs you cite, but are plain text names always consistently used? We have introduced curveName to allow for easy use of Edwards curves, which don’t have an OID yet. But IMO and OID is the more interoperable way – and also backwards compatible for older libraries. Therefore, I think we should be in favor of OIDs and also make clear that curveName was introduced in V3.0 and cannot be used with older libs.

Concerning your comments to lines 8124 and 8136: yes, they are valid. But when looking at the description of other data fields in sections 2.34.2 to 2.34.4, it seems that in one case the counter is even invalid and in all cases also CK_ SP800_108_DKM_LENGTH and CK_ SP800_108_BYTE_ARRAY are optional – but they don’t have it in their name. So, for consistency I would even recommend to remove the “optional” from CK_ SP800_108_OPTIONAL_COUNTER in the whole section 2.34.

Additionally, these are my remarks to the review of Darren:

3429: CKM_ECDSA_KEY_PAIR_GEN should be removed from that table since it was removed in line 3491.

3489: This list is missing CKM_XEDDSA.

Thanks,

Daniel

pkcs11 message