The discussion was very clear about the challenge of FIPS140 validation and that we do not currently support SEED at all in our currrent working draft at of the meeting last week - it isn't there.
I said I would add it so we could be SEED or KEY with a recommendation to be both which is aligned with PKCS#11 and allows for interop with all implementions.
There were no objections and no counter views expressed that we should do something different.
WD17 has *no* support for SEED at all.
There has been no suggested updates.
WD18 allows one or the other or both which allows for maximum interoperability.
How PKCS#8 usage turns out is being debated now - but with WD18 we can express the need details independent of PKCS8. I cannot create test cases with PKCS8 without the issue being resolved but I can create them using the new key format type which will let us proceed with some additional testing. We also cannot use the RAW format either as what should it be? Right now all the test cases do not have SEED in them. That could be changed. But then it would be SEED only. We should not have length based heuristics to determine which of SEED or KEY or both we have to deal with.
That letter expressed my view of the consensus of the committee and the conversations to date. I do not think it is at all in conflict with the discussions to date.
We have not voted on the issue in a formal sense as we are waiting to see how things turn out - but there was a clear consensus. We form a consensus view without votes all the time. And we validate that set of things when we vote on working drafts which we haven't done as yet for any of this work.
If we elected to take a view contrary to PKCS#11 on this topic we would introduce real concrete interoperability issues and the TC has never knowingly made such a choice.
If anyone had raised the possibility of a different view I would have called a vote to test the consensus. That didn't happen.
The letter that was sent was very focused on the SDK side of things and the PKCS#11 and KMIP was showing that other standards bodies have not aligned to *mandate* SEED.
This is a true statement and until WD18 there was no mechanism in KMIP to support SEED at all. The discussion to date was to add that but not to mandate it.
If you truely believe I have misrepresented the consensus view of the KMIP TC please confirm that and I will resign as the liaison between the groups (in both TCs). I do not believe I have and I have been very careful in how I have presented my understanding of the TC. There simply is no way to perform that role if a co-chair believes things have been misrepresented.
I'm travelling at the moment, but once I get your confirmation I'll send in the resignation letter and the TC can vote to appoint someone else as the liaison.