Re: KMIP templates

From
Tim Hudson
Date
2012-09-05T19:52:00+00:00
ID
Thread
Re: KMIP templates
On 6/09/2012 5:01 AM, Bruce Rich wrote:
Yeah, what he said.
And I would note that  immutable
does not appear in the spec, so asserting that it's an essential
property
of KMIP Managed Objects is difficult to agree to.  I agree that
Managed
Cryptographic Objects do not currently have mutators (if one
asserts that
Attributes are not part of the objects).  I believe that's
merely
an observation, not a specification of anything.
Ahh ... you missed out on many a debate around exactly this topic
back when AlanF was working through how to add Users to the system
and how you could go about doing things like changing the password
of a User. That made everything attributes in the model as an Object
is immutable currently as we have explicitly defined no operations
that would support updating the value or included any concept
anywhere in the specification that would even hint that such a
concept is meant to be possible.
Given some of the arguments about what is permitted in the past have
been entirely based on  well it doesn't say you can so obviously you
cannot  I think we have established the mechanism for determining
the intent given it wasn't captured during the production of the
document :-)
Of course you can add/modify/delete attributes - but those are the
attributes of the managed object itself - like every other managed
object. They have nothing to do with the attributes contained within
the template structure. And yes I do see that the specification
allows you to intermix  template  and  object  attributes in the
Template structure which creates a level of mess - and I continue to
argue that it was a mistake to allow that and it should be fixed.
However it doesn't mean that we should suggest that the rules for
how a template is handled and its lifecycle should be different to
all other objects in the system without some serious consideration
to the implications.
You cannot just crisp up Get for Templates - basically Section 2.2.6
needs to be rewritten as it is ambiguous and then you need to define
what attributes are subject to Add/Modify/Delete if you see the
collection of attributes as one pool of attributes some of which are
for the object and some of which are for applying to other objects.
Nothing related to fixing this is a simply crisping up.
Tim.