Lev, et al, I would vote for it as it is now, but I might even be pinch more satisfied if it said some of this kind of stuff:
The Common Interface to Cryptographic Modules (CICM) defines an application programming interface for the security services provided by cryptographic modules developed by multiple vendors. It provides enhanced module, key and channel capabilities that are intended to be vendor neutral. The API is structured to enable it to operate in IA environments that enforce domain separation. This enables it to be adaptable to high assurance IA applications. -John -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Novikov, Lev Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 6:34 PM To: CICM Discussion List Subject: Re: [cicm] BoF Request for CICM at IETF 81 John, On 2011-05-18 at 09:53 John Davidson wrote: > Could you provide a brief list of features present in our APIs and > missing elsewhere? Clearly the biggest difference is the concept of domain separation; it impacts the entire logical model, especially channel management. Additionally, CICM defines more key and module management APIs than other crypto APIs because of the more extensive management available in high assurance devices. See: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lanz-cicm-lm-00#section-2 Lev _______________________________________________ cicm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cicm _______________________________________________ cicm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cicm
