On Fri, 20 Dec 2024 17:50:12 GMT, Sean Mullan <mul...@openjdk.org> wrote:
> > 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. > Thanks, we appreciate this flexibility. My understanding is that we are now waiting for @driverkt's review, unless someone wants to make any other comment in this PR. > 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". Makes sense. Let us know if you need our collaboration. For now, I closed [JDK-8346720](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8346720) as a duplicate of [JDK-8346736](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8346736). ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22215#issuecomment-2557549473
