kmip-interop-tech — archive
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
— [Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [Month Index]
| [List Home]
RE: RSA server
Larry, the time* labels were in the use-case
document. I don't have the slides, so don't know if they appear there
or not...
Bruce A Rich
brich at-sign us dot ibm dot com
From:
<[email protected]>
To:
<[email protected]>,
Bruce Rich/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
Cc:
<[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, Gordon Arnold/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, John
Peck/Endicott/IBM@IBMUS, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>
Date:
02/04/2011 03:06 PM
Subject:
RE: [kmip-interop-tech]
interop use case variant
Sounds ok. What is time3
and time4? I was going by the interop slide deck. Maybe I missed it.
There are some custom attributes
used also, but I don ??t know if they are in the realm of this use case.
Larry H
From: Feather, Stan S [
mailto:[email protected]
]
Sent: Friday, February 04, 2011 1:28 PM
To: Bruce Rich; Hofer, Larry
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Gordon Arnold; John Peck;
Clark, John (Atalla); [email protected]; [email protected];
Hofer, Larry; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]
Subject: RE: [kmip-interop-tech] interop use case variant
Bruce ??s suggestion seems
like the clearest way. Add a sentence to the description stating
that 3.1.3 can also be applied when the key pre-exists on the
server, by omitting the steps at time0, time3, and time4.
Stan
From: Bruce Rich [
mailto:[email protected]
]
Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 4:03 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Gordon Arnold; John Peck;
Clark, John (Atalla); [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
Feather, Stan S; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [kmip-interop-tech] interop use case variant
Larry,
Interesting question.
So your scenario is to just do time 1 (Locate by Name) and time 2 (Get
symmetric key) interactions from use case 3.1.3? Since it requires
out-of-band setup on the server, it doesn't fit real well in the use cases,
which tend to do all the setup and teardown as part of the use case. Perhaps
it might do to document it as 3.1.3.time1 and 3.1.3.time2? Just a
suggestion. Any opinions from the rest of y'all?
Bruce A Rich
brich at-sign us dot ibm dot com
From: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
Cc: Bruce Rich/Austin/IBM@IBMUS,
Gordon Arnold/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, John Peck/Endicott/IBM@IBMUS, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
Date: 02/01/2011
06:38 PM
Subject: [kmip-interop-tech]
interop use case variant
Hello all,
Should we add this variant to the KMIP use case 3.1.3 in the interop slide
deck? It is a minor variation from 3.1.3 so don ??t know the best way to
document it.
We use the KMIP OASIS Use Case 3.1.3 to get a key from a server
Key is created by server.
Client performs a Locate operation,
supplying the Name, to which the server responds with the Unique Identifier
of the created key.
The client retrieves the created
key using its Unique Identifier
Regards,
Larry H
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
— [Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [Month Index]
| [List Home]