KMIP-interop-tech

 View Only
  • 1.  RE: [kmip-interop-tech] Updated Graphs

    Posted 02-20-2019 13:14




    I thought the point of the graphs was to provide a visual representation of conformance to the standard, not the number of products submitted for testing.

     
    -Steve
     
     
    From: kmip-interop-tech@lists.oasis-open.org <kmip-interop-tech@lists.oasis-open.org>
    On Behalf Of Tim Hudson
    Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 7:07 AM
    To: kmip-interop-tech@lists.oasis-open.org
    Subject: Re: [kmip-interop-tech] Updated Graphs
     


    On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 9:58 PM John Leiseboer < JL@quintessencelabs.com > wrote:





    I don t think changing the labels makes the graphs any less misleading. Graphs 1 and 2 present exactly the same information and are more than sufficient.
    John




     


    I don't see how you can simultaneously claim the graphs are misleading
    and   that they contain exactly the same information as two graphs that are not misleading.


    That position is simply not tenable.


     


    The graphs are completely accurate and represent the activity in the testing and are based on results we have all confirmed are accepted as accurate. 


     


    For people that don't read the graph titles and the labels, or elect to read things out of context, Tony has updated the labels to make it clear what number of products are including in the total test results.


     


    Tim.









  • 2.  Re: [kmip-interop-tech] Updated Graphs

    Posted 02-20-2019 15:03
    I don t remember have we had graphs like the last 2 in previous interop? Best, Mark Joseph P6R,  Inc 408-205-0361 mark@p6r.com On Feb 20, 2019, at 5:14 AM, Steve Edwards < sedwards@semper-fortis.com > wrote:







    I thought the point of the graphs was to provide a visual representation of conformance to the standard, not the number of products submitted for testing.

     
    -Steve
     
     
    From: kmip-interop-tech@lists.oasis-open.org < kmip-interop-tech@lists.oasis-open.org >
    On Behalf Of Tim Hudson
    Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 7:07 AM
    To: kmip-interop-tech@lists.oasis-open.org
    Subject: Re: [kmip-interop-tech] Updated Graphs
     


    On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 9:58 PM John Leiseboer < JL@quintessencelabs.com > wrote:





    I don t think changing the labels makes the graphs any less misleading. Graphs 1 and 2 present exactly the same information and are more than sufficient.
    John




     


    I don't see how you can simultaneously claim the graphs are misleading
    and   that they contain exactly the same information as two graphs that are not misleading.


    That position is simply not tenable.


     


    The graphs are completely accurate and represent the activity in the testing and are based on results we have all confirmed are accepted as accurate. 


     


    For people that don't read the graph titles and the labels, or elect to read things out of context, Tony has updated the labels to make it clear what number of products are including in the total test results.


     


    Tim.









  • 3.  RE: [kmip-interop-tech] Updated Graphs

    Posted 02-20-2019 21:01




    I don t believe that we ve had graphs like the last two in previous interops. Last year s graphs were:
     
    KMIP Clients by Encoding
    KMIP Servers by Encoding
    KMIP Clients by KMIP Version
    KMIP Servers by KMIP Version
    KMIP Clients by Test Type
    KMIP Servers by Test Type
    KMIP Clients Profile Conformance
    KMIP Servers Profile Conformance
     
    Apart from the by KMIP Version graphs (we only tested 2.0 this year) I don t agree that some should have been dropped, and new ones added. I would support the same graphs this year as last year,
    with the omission of the by KMIP Version graphs.
     
    I m very disappointed to see the by Test Type and Clients Profile Conformance graphs removed unilaterally. There s been no discussion in the interop group about this. It s very easy to assume
    that the only reason for this is to make some vendors results look better, or worse, than others, which is not the purpose of the interop activity.
     
    John
     



    From: kmip-interop-tech@lists.oasis-open.org <kmip-interop-tech@lists.oasis-open.org>
    On Behalf Of Mark Joseph
    Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2019 1:03 AM
    To: Steve Edwards <sedwards@semper-fortis.com>
    Cc: kmip-interop-tech@lists.oasis-open.org
    Subject: Re: [kmip-interop-tech] Updated Graphs


     
    I don t remember have we had graphs like the last 2 in previous interop?

    Best,

    Mark Joseph


    P6R,  Inc


    408-205-0361


    mark@p6r.com


     




    On Feb 20, 2019, at 5:14 AM, Steve Edwards < sedwards@semper-fortis.com > wrote:



    I thought the point of the graphs was to provide a visual representation of conformance to the standard, not the number of products submitted for testing.

     
    -Steve
     
     
    From:
    kmip-interop-tech@lists.oasis-open.org < kmip-interop-tech@lists.oasis-open.org >
    On Behalf Of Tim Hudson
    Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 7:07 AM
    To: kmip-interop-tech@lists.oasis-open.org
    Subject: Re: [kmip-interop-tech] Updated Graphs
     


    On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 9:58 PM John Leiseboer < JL@quintessencelabs.com > wrote:





    I don t think changing the labels makes the graphs any less misleading. Graphs 1 and 2 present exactly the same information and are more than sufficient.
    John




     


    I don't see how you can simultaneously claim the graphs are misleading
    and   that they contain exactly the same information as two graphs that are not misleading.


    That position is simply not tenable.


     


    The graphs are completely accurate and represent the activity in the testing and are based on results we have all confirmed are accepted as accurate. 


     


    For people that don't read the graph titles and the labels, or elect to read things out of context, Tony has updated the labels to make it clear what number of products are including in the total test results.


     


    Tim.






    ______________________________________________________________________
    This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service for QuintessenceLabs Pty Ltd.
    ______________________________________________________________________







  • 4.  Re: [kmip-interop-tech] Updated Graphs

    Posted 02-20-2019 21:17
    I don t understand why we don t we have the same set of graphs we have had in the past? Best, Mark Joseph P6R,  Inc 408-205-0361 mark@p6r.com On Feb 20, 2019, at 1:01 PM, John Leiseboer < JL@quintessencelabs.com > wrote:







    I don t believe that we ve had graphs like the last two in previous interops. Last year s graphs were:
     
    KMIP Clients by Encoding
    KMIP Servers by Encoding
    KMIP Clients by KMIP Version
    KMIP Servers by KMIP Version
    KMIP Clients by Test Type
    KMIP Servers by Test Type
    KMIP Clients Profile Conformance
    KMIP Servers Profile Conformance
     
    Apart from the by KMIP Version graphs (we only tested 2.0 this year) I don t agree that some should have been dropped, and new ones added. I would support the same graphs this year as last year,
    with the omission of the by KMIP Version graphs.
     
    I m very disappointed to see the by Test Type and Clients Profile Conformance graphs removed unilaterally. There s been no discussion in the interop group about this. It s very easy to assume
    that the only reason for this is to make some vendors results look better, or worse, than others, which is not the purpose of the interop activity.
     
    John
     



    From: kmip-interop-tech@lists.oasis-open.org < kmip-interop-tech@lists.oasis-open.org >
    On Behalf Of Mark Joseph
    Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2019 1:03 AM
    To: Steve Edwards < sedwards@semper-fortis.com >
    Cc: kmip-interop-tech@lists.oasis-open.org
    Subject: Re: [kmip-interop-tech] Updated Graphs


     
    I don t remember have we had graphs like the last 2 in previous interop?

    Best,

    Mark Joseph


    P6R,  Inc


    408-205-0361


    mark@p6r.com


     




    On Feb 20, 2019, at 5:14 AM, Steve Edwards < sedwards@semper-fortis.com > wrote:



    I thought the point of the graphs was to provide a visual representation of conformance to the standard, not the number of products submitted for testing.

     
    -Steve
     
     
    From:
    kmip-interop-tech@lists.oasis-open.org < kmip-interop-tech@lists.oasis-open.org >
    On Behalf Of Tim Hudson
    Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 7:07 AM
    To: kmip-interop-tech@lists.oasis-open.org
    Subject: Re: [kmip-interop-tech] Updated Graphs
     


    On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 9:58 PM John Leiseboer < JL@quintessencelabs.com > wrote:





    I don t think changing the labels makes the graphs any less misleading. Graphs 1 and 2 present exactly the same information and are more than sufficient.
    John




     


    I don't see how you can simultaneously claim the graphs are misleading
    and   that they contain exactly the same information as two graphs that are not misleading.


    That position is simply not tenable.


     


    The graphs are completely accurate and represent the activity in the testing and are based on results we have all confirmed are accepted as accurate. 


     


    For people that don't read the graph titles and the labels, or elect to read things out of context, Tony has updated the labels to make it clear what number of products are including in the total test results.


     


    Tim.






    ______________________________________________________________________
    This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service for QuintessenceLabs Pty Ltd.
    ______________________________________________________________________







  • 5.  Re: [kmip-interop-tech] Updated Graphs

    Posted 02-20-2019 21:38
    Steve makes a good point  On Feb 20, 2019, at 5:14 AM, Steve Edwards < sedwards@semper-fortis.com > wrote:







    I thought the point of the graphs was to provide a visual representation of conformance to the standard, not the number of products submitted for testing.

     
    -Steve
     
     
    From: kmip-interop-tech@lists.oasis-open.org < kmip-interop-tech@lists.oasis-open.org >
    On Behalf Of Tim Hudson
    Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 7:07 AM
    To: kmip-interop-tech@lists.oasis-open.org
    Subject: Re: [kmip-interop-tech] Updated Graphs
     


    On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 9:58 PM John Leiseboer < JL@quintessencelabs.com > wrote:





    I don t think changing the labels makes the graphs any less misleading. Graphs 1 and 2 present exactly the same information and are more than sufficient.
    John




     


    I don't see how you can simultaneously claim the graphs are misleading
    and   that they contain exactly the same information as two graphs that are not misleading.


    That position is simply not tenable.


     


    The graphs are completely accurate and represent the activity in the testing and are based on results we have all confirmed are accepted as accurate. 


     


    For people that don't read the graph titles and the labels, or elect to read things out of context, Tony has updated the labels to make it clear what number of products are including in the total test results.


     


    Tim.









  • 6.  RE: [kmip-interop-tech] Updated Graphs

    Posted 02-20-2019 22:12




    I would change Steve s wording slightly: the point of the graphs is to provide a visual representation of interoperability amongst vendors . Conformance testing is only one of several ways to
    test for interoperability. We use a range of conformance tests, and test case tests to demonstrate interoperability.
     
    John
     



    From: kmip-interop-tech@lists.oasis-open.org <kmip-interop-tech@lists.oasis-open.org>
    On Behalf Of Mark Joseph
    Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2019 7:38 AM
    To: Steve Edwards <sedwards@semper-fortis.com>
    Cc: kmip-interop-tech@lists.oasis-open.org
    Subject: Re: [kmip-interop-tech] Updated Graphs


     
    Steve makes a good point 

     

    On Feb 20, 2019, at 5:14 AM, Steve Edwards < sedwards@semper-fortis.com > wrote:



    I thought the point of the graphs was to provide a visual representation of conformance to the standard, not the number of products submitted for testing.

     
    -Steve
     
     
    From:
    kmip-interop-tech@lists.oasis-open.org < kmip-interop-tech@lists.oasis-open.org >
    On Behalf Of Tim Hudson
    Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 7:07 AM
    To: kmip-interop-tech@lists.oasis-open.org
    Subject: Re: [kmip-interop-tech] Updated Graphs
     


    On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 9:58 PM John Leiseboer < JL@quintessencelabs.com > wrote:





    I don t think changing the labels makes the graphs any less misleading. Graphs 1 and 2 present exactly the same information and are more than sufficient.
    John




     


    I don't see how you can simultaneously claim the graphs are misleading
    and   that they contain exactly the same information as two graphs that are not misleading.


    That position is simply not tenable.


     


    The graphs are completely accurate and represent the activity in the testing and are based on results we have all confirmed are accepted as accurate. 


     


    For people that don't read the graph titles and the labels, or elect to read things out of context, Tony has updated the labels to make it clear what number of products are including in the total test results.


     


    Tim.







    ______________________________________________________________________
    This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service for QuintessenceLabs Pty Ltd.
    ______________________________________________________________________