Understand. But for example, one could put a
volume identifier (e.g., barcode label, serial number) for a removable medium
(e.g., tape) in an Application Specific ID and a key ID that was used on that
removable medium in the Name. Then the key could be located by either the
App. Spec. ID indirectly, or by the key ID. However, duplicate volume
identifiers may exist, so uniqueness in the key ID is a good
thing.
It seems that the one salient difference is that Names
need to be unique within the key management system, whereas App. Spec. IDs do
not. In the particular case of key IDs, I was assuming they would also
require the same level of uniqeness, but if not, then App. Spec. IDs would be
fine.
thanks,
Rod Wideman
Quantum Corporation
(please disregard the confidentiality statement
below)
Rod,
"Rod Wideman" <Rod.Wideman@quantum.com> wrote on 06/11/2009
12:06:10 AM:
> It seems that the original intent of the Application
Specific
> Identification attribute was to provide a way to describe how a
managed
> cryptographic object is used, or to what it is associated
(i.e.,
> identify the application, not the object). I think this is
still useful
> to have, in that objects can then be located that are
associated with a
> particular application or usage.
The App-Specific ID allows applications to resolve the
cryptographic object they needed, unless applications are directly using the
KMIP Unique Identifier or KMIP Name. So the App-Specific ID not only identifies
the application(s) using the object, but also provide the means for the
application(s) to resolve back to that object.
For instance, the App-Specific ID may contain a filename of a file
encrypted with the key. For tape encryption, the application may store its own
Tape Key ID on the tape cartridge, hence the App-Specific ID would contain that
same Tape Key ID.
>
> The current
discussion seems to be oriented around using this attribute
> as a means
to assign an identifier to the object itself (e.g., in the
> case of
Scott's proposal, a Key ID, which I think is similar to what
> Stan is
describing as a key name). This then makes me wonder what the
> Name
attribute should be used for, and whether it would make sense to
> add one
or more additional Name Type enumerations of various "key ID" or
> "key
name" variants to address that specific need, and let the
> Application
Specific attribute continue to provide a way to associate
> the object
with applications.
These identifiers (Key
ID, key name) too are assigned to allow applications to resolve which
cryptographic object they need. So they could fit under App-Specific IDs as
well.
So far, in terms of identification,
we have defined for each Object:
- a Unique
Identifier, which is assigned by the server in a globally-unique fashion and is
immutable.
- one or more Names,
which can be assigned/modified by the client or server, and the server ensures
Names are unique within a given key management domain. Both Unique Identifier
and Names are KMIP constructs used primarily for the sake of KMIP operations.
Names make it for instance easier for humans to manage objects than Unique
Identifiers.
- one or more pairs of
Application Name Space / Application Identifier that are set by applications on
the client side (possibly involving the server if it is competent for that name
space and if requested by the client, as proposed by Rene). But generally, this
App-Specific ID is irrelevant to the KMIP server.
Applications may decide to directly use the KMIP Unique Identifier or
KMIP Names to resolve Objects. Alternatively, if these KMIP constructs are not
suitable (for instance, legacy reasons), the App-Specific ID can be used
instead.
>
> So for example, I
might have a key that has a Name attribute and a Key
> ID name type.
I use this key to encrypt files, so have Application
> Specific Id.
attribute instances to describe the name space(s) of the
> files for which
I use the key.
>
> But I may use more than one key to
encrypt files in those name spaces,
> so if I have another key (having its
own Name attribute and different
> Key ID name type), then I could set the
same Application Specific Id.
> attribute instances with it. Now I
can locate all objects (i.e., keys)
> associated with that particular
application usage.
>
> So I see Name as referencing the object
(i.e., pointing to it) and the
> Application Specific stuff pointing away
from the object (i.e., where
> does it go). The need for "key id"
seems to fit the Name attribute, but
> perhaps I'm missing
something?
You can also see KMIP Name as a
"direct" reference to the object, whereas App-Specific ID enables apps to
resolve a reference in their own name space (such as filename, Tape Key ID, etc)
to the actual KMIP Unique Identifier of the corresponding object.
I think it will depend on the particular use case
whether it is more appropriate to have an application resolve the cryptographic
object using the KMIP Unique Identifier, KMIP Name, or App-Specific
ID.
Regards,
-Robert
>
>
Thanks,
> Rod Wideman
> Quantum Corporation
> (please
disregard the confidentiality statement below)
>
>
>
Original Message-----
> From: Feather, Stan S [mailto:stan.feather@hp.com]
>
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 4:54 PM
> To: skipp@brocade.com;
kmip@lists.oasis-open.org; Rene
> Pawlitzek/Zurich/IBM
> Subject:
RE: [kmip] Groups - Application Specific IDs (Application
> Specific
IDs.pdf) modified
>
> Scott, Renee
>
> Here are my
suggestions about your proposals, which involve changes to
> the same
attribute. This attribute is also the subject of some pending
>
usage guide proposals from HP, for key naming with streaming/removable
>
media.
>
> Scott, you propose multiple fields, up to 8. But
as defined, the client
> can already create an arbitrary number of
instances. Given that, do you
> think multiple ID attributes are
still needed?
>
> On Renee's proposal, I have these comments.
First, I have some concerns
> about the 2nd paragraph "Clients can
provide an instance....". Overall,
> it seems like a given instance
of the attribute should be owned by the
> client, or the server, but not
both. Mixing ownership of structure
> elements in a single instance
seems to rely heavily on client-server
> integration details, and probably
should be out of scope. But I may not
> understand the use
case.
>
> So I would suggest the 2nd paragraph be replaced with a
simplification,
> to the effect that, a given instance of this attribute
may be set by the
> client, or the server. Setting the attribute
establishes ownership for
> that instance, for subsequent modifications or
deletions.
>
> Also, moving the examples to the Usage Guide is a
great idea. Those
> could be extended with the examples in Scott's
proposal.
>
> As mentioned in the call yesterday, I expect
to have a proposal soon
> with further Usage Guide changes for this
attribute.
>
> Stan Feather
> HP StorageWorks,
R&D
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Original Message-----
> From: skipp@brocade.com [mailto:skipp@brocade.com]
> Sent:
Wednesday, May 20, 2009 11:27 AM
> To: kmip@lists.oasis-open.org
>
Subject: [kmip] Groups - Application Specific IDs (Application Specific
>
IDs.pdf) modified
>
> Information about the document named
Application Specific IDs
> (Application Specific IDs.pdf) has been
modified by Scott Kipp.
>
> Document Description:
> This
proposal suggests to add more than one Applications Specific ID and
>
change the name and definition to broaden its scope.
>
> View
Document Details:
> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=32335
>
> Download Document:
> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/32335/Application%20Sp
> ecific%20IDs.pdf
>
>
> PLEASE NOTE: If
the above links do not work for you, your email
> application may be
breaking the link into two pieces. You may be able
> to copy and
paste the entire link address into the address field of your
> web
browser.
>
> -OASIS Open Administration
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
The information contained in this transmission may be confidential.
> Any
disclosure, copying, or further distribution of confidential
>
information is not permitted unless such privilege is explicitly
>
granted in writing by Quantum Corporation. Furthermore, Quantum
>
Corporation is not responsible for the proper and complete
> transmission
of the substance of this communication or for any delay
> in its
receipt.
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>