I wonder if it is possible to remove keyscope property from command line(even if that property is still needed internally)? We can let datasets use pool level wrapping key by default, and use dataset-specific wrapping key only if keysource property is specified for that dataset. That will make the command syntax a little easier to understand, I think. -- Regards, Raymond
Raymond Xiong wrote:> I wonder if it is possible to remove keyscope property from > command line(even if that property is still needed internally)?Possible yes, but I''d like to understand what problem you are trying to solve by doing so.> We can let datasets use pool level wrapping key by default, > and use dataset-specific wrapping key only if keysource > property is specified for that dataset. That will make the > command syntax a little easier to understand, I think.I don''t think that works work as well with inheritance as the current scheme Note also while keyscope only as dataset and pool as possible values just now there could be others in the future. Also the design has already been approved by PSARC and implemented so unless there is a very strong reason to change this I''m not really willing to do so at this time. -- Darren J Moffat
On 03/04/08, Darren J Moffat wrote:> Raymond Xiong wrote: > >I wonder if it is possible to remove keyscope property from > >command line(even if that property is still needed internally)? > > Possible yes, but I''d like to understand what problem you are trying to > solve by doing so. > > >We can let datasets use pool level wrapping key by default, > >and use dataset-specific wrapping key only if keysource > >property is specified for that dataset. That will make the > >command syntax a little easier to understand, I think. > > I don''t think that works work as well with inheritance as the current scheme > > Note also while keyscope only as dataset and pool as possible values > just now there could be others in the future. > > Also the design has already been approved by PSARC and implemented so > unless there is a very strong reason to change this I''m not really > willing to do so at this time.Darren, I asked just because I was curious. Thanks for the explanation. -- Regards, Raymond