Subject: Time Stamp Protocol (TSP) v6

From: Denis Pinkas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 17:59:25 +0100

I have just sent a new version for the Internet X.509 Public Key
Infrastructure Time Stamp Protocol (TSP)
<draft-ietf-pkix-time-stamp-06.txt> to the IETF web master. It
should be made available shortly. 

I have looked at the various comments sent during the last call
period and attempted to provide corrections to address the issues
that have been raised.

The main issues, raised by Roland Mueller, were about:

1. The request message,
2. The error codes,
3. The format of the reply message.

The first issue can be solved by adding an optional field in the
request, which, if absent, means that a digitally-signed token is
requested. No change to the current document is needed.

The second issue can be solved by reserving some error codes. I
propose to reserve two error codes, i.e. 18 and 19 for ISO purposes.
The IETF chairs and the WG shall then make sure that these error
codes are not assigned by the IETF. No change to the current
document is needed.

The third issue can be solved in the following way: A TimeStampToken
can be defined as a ContentInfo.

TimeStampToken ::= ContentInfo
  -- contentType is id-signedData ([CMS])
  -- content is SignedData ([CMS])

However, there exists other types of contentType defined in [CMS] in
particular DigestedData.

      DigestedData ::= SEQUENCE {
        version CMSVersion,
        digestAlgorithm DigestAlgorithmIdentifier,
        encapContentInfo EncapsulatedContentInfo,  

     Digest ::= OCTET STRING

The digest can be a binding. Its interpretation is defined by the
digestAlgorithm.

So ISO could allow to have either signedData or DigestedData, while
the IETF will only has signedData.

Note: My aknowledgments to Peter Sylvester for suggesting this
solution.

Concerning the ASN1 tags, it is more a "matter of taste", since
there is nothing wrong in the current syntax (unless I made an error
?).

I hope that all the issues are now solved and I request you to have
a close look again at the document to make sure that everything is
fine.

Regards,

Denis

---

From: Michael Zolotarev <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 10:16:44 +1100

A minor one:
The Accuracy is now defined as Sequence, implying that a combination of the
fields can be present. But the text is saying "..decomposed either in...":
"accuracy is expressed as an integer, that can be decomposed either in
seconds, milliseconds (between 1-999) or microseconds (1-999)."

"Either" should go, with the text becoming just "...decomposed in...".