Re: slot attributes & last call

[Jan Pechanec <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, 19 Dec 2014, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote:

>> > 	for example, metaslot on Solaris is always 0 so slot-id=0
>> > would be reliable there to use to access the soft token.  Jan.
>> 
>> It is the zeroth slot in the list of slots not a slotid with a value of 
>> 0 - the distinction is subtle.
>> I don't think we should have slot-id, it isn't stable and I know that 
>> some vendors use random values.
>
>Jan,
> Given that this was the main argument for adding slot-id, is there any
>other reason for adding it? Aren't the description and manufacturer
>sufficient for the applications which want to restrict to a specific
>slot?

	hi Nikos, I still think that its ID is 0 since I've been using 
it that way in C_GetMechanismInfo(0, ...).  However, my point is that 
some modules MAY provide stable IDs and since there is no serial 
number as for token then description/manufacturer may not be enough to 
uniquely identify a slot.  That's why it could be useful in certain 
situations.

	I somehow think that people would end up using it anyway and 
partly for that reason we added "pin-value" which was initially 
rejected, too.  If we define slot-id we avoid different parsers to use 
different names like "slot", "slotid", or "slot-id".  That's why I 
think it might be better to include it with a proper note.

	regards, Jan.

-- 
Jan Pechanec <[e-mail]>