Then get rid of Usage Mask as a bit map from KMIP.
John Green
From: [mailto:]
On Behalf Of Mark Joseph
Sent: Friday, 6 January 2017 1:03 PM
To: John Green <>
Cc: Anthony Berglas <>; OASIS KMIP Technical Committee <>
Subject: Re: [kmip] Import operation suggestion
Actually we implement all of these already in our P11 KMIP token as custom attributes as Boolean type. And search is no problem at all
So what is the issue?
Best,
Mark Joseph
P6R, Inc
408-205-0361
On Jan 5, 2017, at 6:00 PM, John Green <> wrote:
Thanks Mark,
Yes they are but it becomes a problem when you need them all and even search for a combination. Besides the bit mask is completing the types properly
for KMIP.
Otherwise why did Usage Mask need to be special?
Regards
John
From: Mark Joseph [mailto:]
Sent: Friday, 6 January 2017 12:47 PM
To: John Green <>
Cc: Anthony Berglas <>; OASIS KMIP Technical Committee <>
Subject: Re: [kmip] Import operation suggestion
BTW All those PKCS#11 attributes you list are type Boolean not a bit mask in P11
Best,
Mark Joseph
P6R, Inc
408-205-0361
On Jan 5, 2017, at 5:16 PM, John Green <> wrote:
Hi Anthony,
Before everyone gets carried away with the PKCS#11 flags how about adding a bit map type to KMIP.
Nothing annoys me more that the fact that Usage Mask is treated especially. Define a bit map data type and its special status disappears at least
as far as an exception on what one can do with searches etc. but there is the backwards compatibility question for that.
If you are going to add PKCS#11 functionality (attributes) to KMIP then either you will come up with more reasons for another special mask such as
the storage attributes (private, modifyable, copyable, destroyable, token) or adopt a bit map data type compatible with integer (for bit mask equivalence). Other candidates for items in a mask are SENSITIVE and EXTRACTAABLE with even ALWAYS SENSITIVE and
NEVER EXTRACTABLE.
Without the bit mask there will be a proliferation of attributes.
If you want to make a standard that is small, concise and elegant then it should not have any exceptions. Because of Usage Mask the type system is
obviously lacking.
Well that is my view anyway.
If you would like a more formal description I would be happy to supply one.
John Green
From:
[mailto:]
On Behalf Of Mark Joseph
Sent: Friday, 6 January 2017 10:51 AM
To: Anthony Berglas <>
Cc: OASIS KMIP Technical Committee <>
Subject: [kmip] Import operation suggestion
Anthony
On the Import operation why not define a minimum set of attributes that must be supported on both ends for the operation to succeed? Maybe this is a way to ensure interoperability. I think one use for this feature could be by a customer
to export from one server vendor and move the object to a different vendors product.
Best,
Mark Joseph
P6R, Inc
408-205-0361
On Jan 5, 2017, at 1:28 AM, Anthony Berglas <> wrote:
Um, that should be PKCS#11, not POX intended!
Anthony
On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 7:25 PM, Anthony Berglas <> wrote:
Submitter's message
Hello All,
Below is the link to a proposal to add Extractable and Sensitive flags to KMIP. They are modeled after POCS#11 in order to restrict the retrieval of key material.
I will present this on tomorrow's call.
-- Anthony Berglas
Document Name:
Non Exportable and Sensitive Attributes proposal
No description provided.
Download Latest Revision
Public Download Link
Submitter: Anthony Berglas
Group: OASIS Key Management Interoperability Protocol (KMIP) TC
Folder: Drafts
Date submitted: 2017-01-05 01:25:10
--
Anthony Berglas Ph.D.
Principal Engineer
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service for QuintessenceLabs Pty Ltd.
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service for QuintessenceLabs Pty Ltd.
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service for QuintessenceLabs Pty Ltd.
______________________________________________________________________
