OASIS PKCS 11 TC

 View Only

  • 1.  [pkcs11] Message* functions

    Posted 01-18-2018 18:28
    All,   Bob wrote:   Except C_EncryptMessage would look like  it was supposed to include MessageFinal (in all or other examples). This was the primary reason for making the inner functions with swapped names (particularly since the inner functions can themselves be multi-part).   That’s why I also suggested to rename C_EncryptMessageFinal to C_EncryptMessageEnd to emphasize the different usage. If “Final” is what people distracts the solution should be to rename “Final” and not to change the common prefix of functions that belong together.   I believe sloven belief in 'consistent' naming without nuance can be dangerous. AEAD in many ways is a new animal. The spec as given had a *LOT* of thought go into how the spellings should be for the functions. When the spec was presented in it's numerous cases, the spellings were pointed out for comment.   Was it this discussion? https://wiki.oasis-open.org/pkcs11/MeetingMinutes/Minutes015042015 says “In all instances the semantics are to change to ‘C_MessageEncrypt..’ – Init and Final should be changed to be consistent. (C_MessageEncrypt -> C_EncryptMessage & C_MessageDecrypt -> C_DecryptMessage)” The reason is not given here, and actually I don’t fully understand the comment, especially the “C_MessageEncrypt -> C_EncryptMessage” part since there is no C_MessageEncrypt in the proposal except for C_MessageEncryptInit and C_MessageEncryptFinal. So, maybe it was meant to change it to what I proposed?   Changing it at the last minute because it doesn't meet a particular aesthetic puts aside the thought that was originally put into the text.   I acknowledge the thoughts but see my comment above for a better solution that solves the original problem as well. Second, I’ve received some private mails supporting my view. And third, it’s not a question of aesthetics but a question of good software engineering. Or as someone in a private mail wrote: To me, this looks like one of those things that people who aren’t familiar with it, later, are going to look at it and ask “Why?”.   My point about the length of time. It's been 2 years (it took a year before the approval vote). That was plenty of time to review and bring up issues of function spellings. I believe we just need to say 'it's settled' and move on.   I agree that the proposal took quite long. It appeared first in March 2014 from Wan-Teh ( https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=52895&wg_abbrev=pkcs11 ), disappeared from the agenda, reappeared in Feb 2016 ( https://wiki.oasis-open.org/pkcs11/Meetingminutes/Minutes25022016 ), was not discussed afterwards for months, reappeared again beginning of 2017 and was finally agreed upon. However, the problem was not that there was too much discussion but slow feedback. And even in the final proposal that was reviewed and went to the working draft there are a few errors (see my posted WD03 rework). Therefore, I’m really wondering how good the reviews have actually been…   What we put into PCKS#11 3.0 now will live for quite some time and will be very hard to change – if at all. Therefore, we should really put a lot of effort into reviewing it and pointing to problems. Everything what’s in the Working Draft right now was already agreed. Nevertheless, we will still find problems beside editorial mistakes. But why shouldn’t we fix them if there are good solutions before the release?   Best, Daniel   Utimaco IS GmbH Germanusstr. 4, D.52080 Aachen, Germany, Tel: +49-241-1696-0, www.utimaco.com Seat: Aachen – Registergericht Aachen HRB 18922 VAT ID No.: DE 815 496 496 Managementboard: Malte Pollmann (Chairman) CEO, Dr. Frank J. Nellissen CFO This communication is confidential. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at https://www.utimaco.com/en/e-mail-disclaimer/


  • 2.  Re: [pkcs11] Message* functions

    Posted 01-18-2018 23:58
    We debated the naming scheme more than once and did talk about it during at least one face to face meeting. It is different - because we decided that it should be explicitly different given the context. I share Bob's view that the time for this debate was long ago. It would be different in my view if we had not actually debated precisely this naming difference - but we did. Tim.


  • 3.  RE: [pkcs11] Message* functions

    Posted 01-19-2018 09:01




    Tim,
     
    If there were such precise discussions I should be able to find some notes about it and someone should be able to explain me the reason for deviating from common interface
    design practices such as using common name prefix for functions that belong together logically. None of this is true so far.
     



    Thanks,
    Daniel
     







    Utimaco IS GmbH
    Germanusstr. 4, D.52080 Aachen, Germany, Tel: +49-241-1696-0, www.utimaco.com
    Seat: Aachen – Registergericht Aachen HRB 18922
    VAT ID No.: DE 815 496 496
    Managementboard: Malte Pollmann (Chairman) CEO, Dr. Frank J. Nellissen CFO

    This communication is confidential. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at https://www.utimaco.com/en/e-mail-disclaimer/






  • 4.  Re: [pkcs11] Message* functions

    Posted 01-19-2018 15:06
    Daniel This discussion is a waste of time.  The TC has already determined the function names.  If you where late and could not contribute to the previous discussion that is unfortunate but we should not have to start over just because you where not part of the TC before.   I suggest we move on and stop wasting time.   Best, Mark Joseph P6R,  Inc 408-205-0361 mark@p6r.com On Jan 19, 2018, at 1:00 AM, Daniel Minder < Daniel.Minder@utimaco.com > wrote:







    Tim,
     
    If there were such precise discussions I should be able to find some notes about it and someone should be able to explain me the reason for deviating from common interface
    design practices such as using common name prefix for functions that belong together logically. None of this is true so far.
     



    Thanks,
    Daniel
     







    Utimaco IS GmbH
    Germanusstr. 4, D.52080 Aachen, Germany, Tel: +49-241-1696-0, www.utimaco.com
    Seat: Aachen – Registergericht Aachen HRB 18922
    VAT ID No.: DE 815 496 496
    Managementboard: Malte Pollmann (Chairman) CEO, Dr. Frank J. Nellissen CFO

    This communication is confidential. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at https://www.utimaco.com/en/e-mail-disclaimer/






  • 5.  Re: [pkcs11] Message* functions

    Posted 01-19-2018 16:31
    I respectfully disagree here. I don’t think this is a waste of time. The TC is an open forum, and anyone is welcome to propose, debate, or suggest to change things. If anyone feels strongly about something, they are certainly within their rights to ask for a discussion and potentially a vote on the matter. On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 07:05:31AM -0800, Mark Joseph wrote: > Daniel > > This discussion is a waste of time. The TC has already determined the function names. If you where late and could not contribute to the previous discussion that is unfortunate but we should not have to start over just because you where not part of the TC before. I suggest we move on and stop wasting time. > > Best, > Mark Joseph > P6R, Inc > 408-205-0361 > mark@p6r.com > > > > On Jan 19, 2018, at 1:00 AM, Daniel Minder <Daniel.Minder@utimaco.com> wrote: > > > > Tim, > > > > If there were such precise discussions I should be able to find some notes about it and someone should be able to explain me the reason for deviating from common interface design practices such as using common name prefix for functions that belong together logically. None of this is true so far. > > > > Thanks, > > Daniel > > > > > > > > Utimaco IS GmbH > > Germanusstr. 4, D.52080 Aachen, Germany, Tel: +49-241-1696-0, www.utimaco.com > > Seat: Aachen – Registergericht Aachen HRB 18922 > > VAT ID No.: DE 815 496 496 > > Managementboard: Malte Pollmann (Chairman) CEO, Dr. Frank J. Nellissen CFO > > > > This communication is confidential. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at https://www.utimaco.com/en/e-mail-disclaimer/


  • 6.  Re: [pkcs11] Message* functions

    Posted 01-19-2018 16:54
    I would be happy for people to vote on the matter. And it is an open forum but that does not mean that all the work that others have already done has to be put on hold because some people where very late.    Otherwise nothing would get done.    And we are only talking about the names of functions not what they do.   At some point that just does not matter much. Regards, Mark Joseph P6R, Inc From: Chris Zimman <chris@wmpp.com> To: <pkcs11@lists.oasis-open.org> Sent: 1/19/2018 8:30 AM Subject: Re: [pkcs11] Message* functions I respectfully disagree here.  I don’t think this is a waste of time.  The TC is an open forum, and anyone is welcome to propose, debate, or suggest to change things.  If anyone feels strongly about something, they are certainly within their rights to ask for a discussion and potentially a vote on the matter. On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 07:05:31AM -0800, Mark Joseph wrote: > Daniel > > This discussion is a waste of time.  The TC has already determined the function names.  If you where late and could not contribute to the previous discussion that is unfortunate but we should not have to start over just because you where not part of the TC before.   I suggest we move on and stop wasting time.   > > Best, > Mark Joseph > P6R,  Inc > 408-205-0361 > mark@p6r.com > > > > On Jan 19, 2018, at 1:00 AM, Daniel Minder <Daniel.Minder@utimaco.com> wrote: > > > > Tim, > >   > > If there were such precise discussions I should be able to find some notes about it and someone should be able to explain me the reason for deviating from common interface design practices such as using common name prefix for functions that belong together logically. None of this is true so far. > >   > > Thanks, > > Daniel > >   > > > > > > Utimaco IS GmbH > > Germanusstr. 4, D.52080 Aachen, Germany, Tel: +49-241-1696-0, www.utimaco.com > > Seat: Aachen – Registergericht Aachen HRB 18922 > > VAT ID No.: DE 815 496 496 > > Managementboard: Malte Pollmann (Chairman) CEO, Dr. Frank J. Nellissen CFO > > > > This communication is confidential. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at https://www.utimaco.com/en/e-mail-disclaimer/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php


  • 7.  RE: [pkcs11] Message* functions

    Posted 01-19-2018 16:58




    Mark,
     
    Yes, it’s only the names of functions. So it’s not a big deal, right? If another naming is more consistent and does solve the same problems as the strange naming, why not use
    it? Search&replace can be done in a few minutes – I’m happy to do that.
     
    Let’s vote on it.
     
    Cheers,
    Daniel
     


    From: pkcs11@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:pkcs11@lists.oasis-open.org]
    On Behalf Of Mark Joseph
    Sent: Freitag, 19. Januar 2018 17:54
    To: Chris Zimman <chris@wmpp.com>; pkcs11@lists.oasis-open.org
    Subject: Re: [pkcs11] Message* functions


     
    I would be happy for people to vote on the matter.

    And it is an open forum but that does not mean that all the work that others have already done has to be put on hold because some people where very late.    Otherwise nothing would get done.    And we are only talking about the names of
    functions not what they do.   At some point that just does not matter much.


     


     


    Regards,


    Mark Joseph


    P6R, Inc










    Utimaco IS GmbH
    Germanusstr. 4, D.52080 Aachen, Germany, Tel: +49-241-1696-0, www.utimaco.com
    Seat: Aachen – Registergericht Aachen HRB 18922
    VAT ID No.: DE 815 496 496
    Managementboard: Malte Pollmann (Chairman) CEO, Dr. Frank J. Nellissen CFO

    This communication is confidential. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at https://www.utimaco.com/en/e-mail-disclaimer/






  • 8.  RE: [pkcs11] Message* functions

    Posted 01-19-2018 16:55
    Thanks Chris for your support. I was just going to remind everyone what was said during the TC meeting on Dec 13th. Quotes from the minutes: "Tony wants to remind TC we all are behind all of documents, full document. We all have a responsibility to review the entire document." "Please post any questions for clarification or corrections to the list, it will encourage others to look and will help improve the document." This is exactly what I did. I take responsibility. Otherwise, we should all stop reviewing the documents and focus on our sections only - which is exactly the opposite of what we agreed. Best, Daniel
    Original Message


  • 9.  RE: [pkcs11] Message* functions

    Posted 01-30-2018 01:31
    Hi folks - Sorry for being late to the game here, we could certainly discuss in a meeting. The naming was discussed in 2 face-to faces, but how detailed the minutes are depends on the scribe (I can type really fast, but not for very long, so there was shared duties here). And Daniel and Chris are right, Tony asked for everyone to look at as much of the document as possible. It may seem like rehashing, but some things are confusing to new eyes. We should take that as an indication of what may come up in our public review or by community in general and try to clarify, where appropriate. This does not necessarily mean changing all of the names, but clarity and discussion are worthwhile. I imagine we can close quite quickly on this on the phone and recommend Tony to add it to our next agenda. It is much easier to address comments and concerns now than it is during our public review. Valerie
    Original Message


Related Content