Re: [cicm] Key Identifers
"Nanjundiah, Girish" <Girish.Nanjundiah@viasat.com> Mon, 06 June 2011 16:47 UTC
Return-Path: <girish.nanjundiah@viasat.com>
X-Original-To: cicm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: cicm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1991511E8177 for <cicm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Jun 2011 09:47:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5TWDsV6qqo45 for <cicm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Jun 2011 09:47:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from viasat.com (bateleur.viasat.com [199.106.52.160]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8B9111E8181 for <cicm@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Jun 2011 09:47:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([172.20.1.71]) by bateleur.viasat.com with ESMTP id H6GMFJ1.45571390; Mon, 06 Jun 2011 09:47:30 -0700
Received: from vcaexch06.hq.corp.viasat.com ([172.18.46.74]) by VCAEXCH02.hq.corp.viasat.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 6 Jun 2011 09:47:29 -0700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2011 09:47:29 -0700
Message-ID: <E3337014FCBC034BBD725917528D5D7BD08CC4@vcaexch06.hq.corp.viasat.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [cicm] Key Identifers
Thread-Index: AQHMIiC4MPsFX1Dzn0qnSMClDalVL5SsNdIjgAQiuFCAADVEEA==
References: <E3337014FCBC034BBD725917528D5D7BD08CBF@vcaexch06.hq.corp.viasat.com><06D46EAFF7D0C946BEC108DB7CCDC9A608B49452@ROCMXUS21.cs.myharris.net> <BB991CD915E5884B9E4D087F2C63EE0BD332BF@csemail02.cse.l-3com.com>
From: "Nanjundiah, Girish" <Girish.Nanjundiah@viasat.com>
To: CICM Discussion List <cicm@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Jun 2011 16:47:29.0806 (UTC) FILETIME=[6C8A22E0:01CC2469]
Subject: Re: [cicm] Key Identifers
X-BeenThere: cicm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: CICM Discussion List <cicm@ietf.org>
List-Id: CICM Discussion List <cicm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/cicm>, <mailto:cicm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/cicm>
List-Post: <mailto:cicm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cicm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cicm>, <mailto:cicm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2011 16:47:35 -0000
That is part of my question, I realize we are not allowed to modify the header file but if we are to add _set and _get methods for the classes as Lev said then we do need to modify the header file in order to add the function signatures. Thanks, -Girish -----Original Message----- From: cicm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:cicm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Steven.DiMedio@L-3Com.com Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 6:50 AM To: CICM Discussion List Subject: Re: [cicm] Key Identifers Maybe the spirit of Girish's original question was whether we implementers are permitted to modify the CICM test harness files provided to us by MITRE. It was my understanding (from the kickoff telecon) that we vendors are only to modify the cicm.cpp and config.h files, not the cicm.h, encrypt.cpp, and decrypt.cpp files. (That is, implementers are to complete the coding of the stubs in cicm.cpp.) If that understanding is correct, it limits implementers a bit as to what functionality can be added. So maybe the broader question is: are venders permitted/expected to modify all the test harness files? Thanks, Steve DiMedio L3 Communications 856-338-4204 -----Original Message----- From: cicm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:cicm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fitton, John Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 6:29 PM To: CICM Discussion List Subject: Re: [cicm] Key Identifers I would imagine that one method would be for the entity desiring to obtain key identifiers would be to list the attributes of the keys that it is interested in. By passing in such an attribute list, then a compilation of the key identifiers which satisfy the attribute list could be provided. Proper Least Privilege restrictions would restrict the entity from including any attributes in the request that are not consistent with the applications needs. These "needs" could be listed in a security policy which is enforced by the Security Model. In that way the application could only find out about keys which a constrained to that attribute set. ________________________________ From: Nanjundiah, Girish [Girish.Nanjundiah@viasat.com] Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 7:17 PM To: CICM Discussion List Subject: [cicm] Key Identifers Hello Everyone, Sorry if this question is extremely obvious or just hasn't been answered but I'm a little confused as to how we are meant to access the CICM::CharString identifier attribute of the CICM::Key class. I'm assuming attributes are all private or protected, so how is one to access the identifier? While it is easy to obtain its value with CICM::Key::export, I can't seem to find a way to set it without adding another function or a constructor for the CICM::Key class... Thanks, -Girish Nanjundiah _______________________________________________ cicm mailing list cicm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cicm _______________________________________________ cicm mailing list cicm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cicm
- [cicm] Key Identifers Nanjundiah, Girish
- Re: [cicm] Key Identifers Novikov, Lev
- Re: [cicm] Key Identifers Fitton, John
- Re: [cicm] Key Identifers Steven.DiMedio
- Re: [cicm] Key Identifers Nanjundiah, Girish
- Re: [cicm] Key Identifers Novikov, Lev