Hello John and David,
The ResponseCorrelation was included for two reasons. The first is that
it might be difficult for a client to generate truly unique values and
duplicate values which could easily confuse automated auditors that are
processing large logs.
The second reason is that the server may already have a standard way of
generating log record identifiers, and it could be convenient to be able
to store them explicitly in the client logs. Those identifiers also
provide evidence to the client that the server actually processed the
request.
Given simplicity and the low cost of including them I thought that it
would be worthwhile.
As to the Unique Batch Item ID, there are two problems as pointed out by
Tim before. The first is that they identify batch items, and not
requests. The second is simply that this is not how existing vendors
use the IDs, which is to identify batch items within a batch when Batch
Order Option has not been set true. It is generally much better to
introduce new functionality explicitly with new tags rather than subtly
changing the meanings of existing tags.
(Sorry for the late response)
Anthony.
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 11:13 PM, Featherstone, David <> wrote:
Hi Anthony
I do not agree that the semantics of the Unique Batch Item ID could not / should not be changed to support enhanced logging. That said, I do agree with John Leiseboer that there is no need for a Response Correlation.
Regards,
… Dave
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of John Leiseboer
Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 3:23 AM
To: Anthony Berglas;
Subject: RE: [kmip] Groups - Client / Server Correlation Value uploaded
HI Anthony,
The changes are an improvement. I don’t see a need for the ResponseCorrelation value though. If the RequestCorrelation value is present in the Request message and the related Response message, that should be sufficient to correlate the request with the response in both client and server logs. What need do you see for having both correlation values in the Response message? If the one correlation value is sufficient, then maybe it could be renamed MessageCorrelation value or something similar?
John
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Anthony Berglas
Sent: Wednesday, 16 December 2015 5:27 PM
To:
Subject: [kmip] Groups - Client / Server Correlation Value uploaded
Submitter's message
This update incorporates feedback from Sue G, Bruce R, David F and Mark J.
-- Anthony Berglas
Document Name: Client / Server Correlation Value
Description
Proposal to enhance communication between the client and server.
Download Latest Revision
Public Download Link
Submitter: Anthony Berglas
Group: OASIS Key Management Interoperability Protocol (KMIP) TC
Folder: Proposals
Date submitted: 2015-12-15 22:26:55
Revision: 1
The information contained in this electronic mail transmission
may be privileged and confidential, and therefore, protected
from disclosure. If you have received this communication in
error, please notify us immediately by replying to this
message and deleting it from your computer without copying
or disclosing it.
--
Anthony Berglas Ph.D.
Principal Engineer
