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 <jan.pechanec@xxxxxxxxxx>