On Thu, 2014-12-18 at 11:22 +0000, Darren J Moffat wrote: > > On 12/18/14 00:15, Jan Pechanec wrote: > > On Wed, 17 Dec 2014, Nico Williams wrote: > > > >>> removable token and you cannot use slot-description, slot-manufacturer and > >>> neither of token attributes? So the only option left is: pkcs11:slot-id=2 > >>> ??? > >> > >> I think so. This is really for Jan to answer. Maybe the Solaris > >> libpkcs11 should just ensure a meaningful (stable and distinct) slot > >> label. If that could be done then slot-id could be excluded here. > >> > >> Jan? > > > > 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? regards, Nikos