Subject: Re: Is this non-repudiation or NR, and why?

From: "David P. Kemp" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 18:13:47 -0400 (EDT)

From: Tony Bartoletti <[email-masked]>
>
> At 04:54 PM 8/19/99 -0400, Robert W. Shirey wrote:
> >
> > non-repudiation service
> > -----------------------
> > (I) A security service that provide protection against false denial of
> > involvement in a communication. (Also see: repudiation.)
> > 
>  [snip]
> >
> >--------   --------   --------  --------                 --------
> >Phase 1:   Phase 2:   Phase 3:  Phase 4:                 Phase 5:
> >Request    Generate   Store     Verify                   Resolve
> >Service    Evidence   Evidence  Evidence                 Dispute
> >--------   --------   --------  --------                 --------
> >
> >Service    Critical   Evidence  Evidence    Critical     Evidence
> >Request => Action  => Is     => Is       => Action Is => Is
> >Is Made    Occurs     Stored    Tested      Repudiated   Verified
> >           and           |         ^                         ^
> >           Evidence      v         |                         |
> >           Is         +-------------------+                  |
> >           Generated  |Verifiable Evidence|------------------+
> >                      +-------------------+
> >
> >[For94] W. Ford, *Computer Communications Security: Principles, Standard
> >Protocols and Techniques", ISBN 0-13-799453-2, 1994.
> 
> Nice Graph!
> 
> Classically referred to as NR, I believe predict Ed will describe it
> as a mechanical "Proof of Authentication" scheme.  The contents so
> authenticated may or may not be NR, except in the earlier sense of
> "mathematically non-repudiable".

I would like to see a request from the ABA that we cease and desist
using the term "technical non-repudiation" or "non-repudiation
[security] service" to refer to this mathematical process, before we
feel obliged to abandon a term that is well established in the
literature.  To date, we have not seen evidence of concern within
the legal community that the term is either confusing or inaccurate.

---

From: Tony Bartoletti <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 16:24:25 -0700

At 06:13 PM 8/19/99 -0400, David P. Kemp wrote:
[snip]

[snip]
>the legal community that the term is either confusing or inaccurate.

Agreed.  This is an "evidence preservation" system/process, and the
unlabeled phase "Critical Action Is Repudiated" should be described
by "Authenticity of Evidence is Questioned".

Unfortunately, the sense that this process itself represents "NR"
is not uncommon.  We need a term, such as Ed's "POA" to refer to
the mechanism above, so when someone claims to be talking about
"NR", one can ask "in what sense, beyond POA?"

___tony___

Tony Bartoletti                                             LL
IOWA Center                                              LL LL
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory                LL LL LL
PO Box 808, L - 089                                   LL LL LL
Livermore, CA 94551-9900                              LL LL LLLLLLLL
phone: 925-422-3881   fax: 925-423-8081               LL LLLLLLLL
email: [email-masked]                                   LLLLLLLL