Re: [cicm] Key Fill (was: Proposed WG Charter)

["Novikov, Lev" <[e-mail]>]

On 2011-07-14 19:17, Lev Novikov wrote:
> [...]
> * add module events for symmetric and asymmetric key filled
> [...]

On 2011-07-15 10:42, Kevin Wall wrote:
> You mean like an HSM, as an example of a key filled device?

Not quite; I'm referring to a device which fills (loads) a module 
with keys. E.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fill_device

> Seems like it should say something like "Key filled device" or
> "key filled interface" or "key filled action" or "key filled protocol"
> or _something_ then. The way it's worded is a bit odd as far as the
> English grammar goes.
>
> To me, that bullet reads as though some word is missing at the
> end. Even with your explanation (which now makes it makes it sense)
> it still reads very awkward to me.

Funny, I had a similar reaction when I was introduced to the term 
"key fill"-- I kept wanting to say "key filling" (as a gerund), but I 
kept getting corrected "yes, it does key fill" (verb acting as a noun 
without being a gerund). It would almost be better, grammatically, if it
was hyphenated "key-fill" so that it looked more like a noun than a 
verb. Alas, it is not the common usage. So it's not clear how you 
conjugate the past tense of a verb that doesn't normally get 
conjugated.

On 2011-07-15 13:44, Hema Krishnamurthy wrote:
> Maybe just say "add module events for symmetric and asymmetric 
> key fill" 
> 'Key Fill' is a common terminology.

Good suggestion. It keeps the bizarre conjugation consistent.

Lev