On Tue, 7 Jan 2025 13:50:04 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). > > @martinuy I think the CSR can be Proposed while code reviews are still > ongoing. > @seanjmullan , should I move CSR > [JDK-8344464](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8344464) to finalized? Yes. > Can we have CSR [JDK-8346721](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8346721) > reviewed? @valeriepeng @driverkt @wangweij - can you please review this CSR? ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22215#issuecomment-2607322766
