That is very good in my opinion.
----- Original Message ----- From: [email protected] <[email protected]> To: CICM Discussion List <[email protected]> Sent: Sat May 21 19:30:46 2011 Subject: Re: [cicm] BoF Request for CICM at IETF 81 John, On 2011-05-19 at 10:49, John Davidson wrote: > 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. It seems that you are trying to distinguish between environments that enforce domain separation and high assurance environments. I've been thinking about how to incorporate that point into our existing text. What do people think about the following? The Common Interface to Cryptographic Modules (CICM) defines a vendor-neutral application programming interface for security services provided by cryptographic modules developed by multiple vendors. The API defines enhanced module, key, and channel capabilities and is structured to to enable applications to operate in environments that enforce security domain separation, such as high assurance environments. While I can see the point being made, it might make it harder for people who are not familiar with our fine distinctions (i.e. the rest of the IETF) to understand why CICM is important. I'm open to other suggestions. Thanks, 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
