Subject: RE: Time-stamp server. TimePrecision info

From: "Meggison, Tim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 1999 13:55:43 -0400

I agree - we need to stop putting false limitations into
standards/protocols.

Rather than asking "What applications require microseconds today", let's
turn it around and ask "Provide proof that microseconds won't be necessary a
year from today."

Let the market determine if it needs timestamps with the greater
granularity.

-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Bartoletti [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 1999 1:37 PM
To: Dan Geer; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Time-stamp server. TimePrecision info

It may be true that, out of a sense of fairness, some events are
considered "simultaneous" if they occur within the same second,
or minute.  But 100 years ago, that may have been "days or weeks".

I see technology rocketing ahead so fast my head spins.  Try, if
you can, to imagine processor speeds and typical transmission
bandwidths 1000 times greater than the fastest today.  It will
not be too far off.  So I must concur with those who ask "What
harm in allowing microseconds, or even nanoseconds, to be
representable in the protocol?  We may not (yet) have many
applications where such resolution (in signatures, certs, and
authentication) is critical.  But can the same be said for
"hours"?  Generally, no.

Whatever you do, do not make a determination based upon saving
a few bytes.  Such a decision will appear laughable in 10 years.

___tony___

At 10:36 PM 4/2/99 -0500, Dan Geer wrote:
>
>We argue most about mechanism when we are least
>reconciled with respect to requirement.  Perhaps
>I can provide a succulent target:
>
>  The requirement for time is event serialization
>  sufficient to support an economic level of recourse.
>
>Unremarkably, two events within the error band are
>definitionally simultaneous -- the NYSE tick is
>not micro-seconds but rather macro- and many events
>are declared simultaneous in the interest of fairness,
>to take a central example from high-value commerce.
>
>Is there an economist in the house?
>
>--dan
>
>
>

Tony Bartoletti                                             LL
Center for Information Operations and Assurance          LL LL
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory                LL LL LL
PO Box 808, L - 303                                   LL LL LL
Livermore, CA 94551-9900                              LL LL LLLLLLLL
phone: 925-422-3881   fax: 925-423-8002               LL LLLLLLLL
email: [email-masked]                                   LLLLLLLL

---

From: "Bill Lattin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 16:58:51 -0700

I agree.  Let's not arbitrarily limit ourselves based on current
capabilities or applications.  We are regularly trying to overcome arbitrary
limitations in other areas - such as address space, time format problems,
cryptographic key lengths - a little extra effort here can mean a system
that will work for centuries.  NTP works well today.  Let's extend it to
work well in future applications.

Bill Lattin
TTFN & Associates

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf
> Of Meggison, Tim
> Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 1999 10:56
> To: Tony Bartoletti; Dan Geer; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: Time-stamp server. TimePrecision info
>
>