On Thu, 19 Dec 2024 21:11:24 GMT, Sean Mullan <mul...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>>> > Added a _Specification_ change to the CSR so the _Generic_ name is added >>> > to the Standard Names document. >>> >>> I think this should be done as a separate issue. By adding this to the CSR, >>> this Enhancement means it is now of SE scope. I would rather this remain as >>> JDK scope. It is better to keep SE and JDK scope changes separate, >>> especially if we ever backport this, it will be smoother if it is of JDK >>> scope. >> >> Are you okay if we create a separated PR to have _Generic_ first and we make >> the HKDF PR depend on that? We are not planning to backport HKDF but any >> backport can remove the affected part in the test and avoid an SE change as >> dependency. > >> Are you okay if we create a separated PR to have _Generic_ first and we make >> the HKDF PR depend on that? We are not planning to backport HKDF but any >> backport can remove the affected part in the test and avoid an SE change as >> dependency. > > Yes, but I don't think it needs to be done in any particular order. It is ok > if this change goes in first, or vice versa. The spec changes needs to be > done by someone in Oracle anyway because the spec is not in the open repo. > Please file a separate issue and I will find an assignee. > I'll split this PR and clarify the intention for _Generic_ keys in the new > CSR. @seanjmullan, based on what we discussed with Weijun, would you be open > to making this PR dependent on the _Generic_ one? Otherwise, I'll have to > trim the test and we will loose coverage. First, I don't think it is necessary to make this PR dependent on [the Generic one](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8346720). Go ahead and integrate this issue after you get the necessary reviews. I think it is ok if it is using "Generic" as long as we have a plan to address that in a follow-up issue and add it as a standard name, or revert to something else if we decide differently. Second, I would like to expand the scope of the new issue to include other uses of "Generic", as it is also used by the KEM API when [decapsulating](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/59c2aff1edffb66762bbbe5e310913f87953be5b/src/java.base/share/classes/javax/crypto/KEM.java#L206). Weijun just opened [an issue](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8346736) that will address that and I think we should address the PKCS11 "Generic" name at the same time - I also want to make sure we think this through a bit more. So I would dup JDK-8346720 to the issue Weijun created. In a worse case scenario, if we decide we don't want to standardize the PKCS11 "Generic" name, then maybe you could change it to something more P11 specific later, like "P11Generic". ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22215#issuecomment-2557462086
