Subject: Re: Draft on TimeStampedData

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 09:35:03 -0400

At 12:06 PM +0200 8/31/07, Tilo Kienitz wrote:
>Adriano,
>
>>  After pondering on this and other remarks, I cannot help but agree
>>  with Steve.
>>
>>  My original and essential goal is that of facilitating interoperability
>>  in a currently unregulated field. If we allow for several "degrees of
>>  freedom", than interoperability will be hampered from the beginning.
>>  So I'd better stick to RFC 3161 for now. We could include support for
>>  RFC 4998 Evidence Records later on, at the time when they become a
>>  widespread reality comparable to RFC 3161 TimeStampTokens (which are
>>  widely implemented).
>
>I would prefer to have both options: RFC 3161 and RFC 4998. For our
>customers evidence records are a widespread reality already.
>A standardized way to put some data and their evidence record into
>a single file would be useful.
>
>Kind regards
>Tilo

I suggest the following compromise:

	- we refine the format to allow for more than one type of time stamp
	- we mandate support (a MUST in the document) for 3161 time stamps

That way there is a minimum, interoperable time stamp format that all 
compliant implementations MUST support, but we allow for additional 
time stamps that MAY be supported.  We need to establish a 
registration procedure for additional, approved time stamp formats.

How does that sound?

Steve

---

From: "Santoni Adriano" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 15:56:14 +0200

That sounds very sensible to me.

Adriano 

-----Messaggio originale-----
Da: Stephen Kent [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Inviato: venerdì 31 agosto 2007 15.35
A: Tilo Kienitz
Cc: Santoni Adriano; [email-masked]; Young H Etheridge
Oggetto: Re: Draft on TimeStampedData

At 12:06 PM +0200 8/31/07, Tilo Kienitz wrote:
>>  My original and essential goal is that of facilitating 
>> interoperability  in a currently unregulated field. If we allow for 
>> several "degrees of  freedom", than interoperability will be hampered from the beginning.
>>  So I'd better stick to RFC 3161 for now. We could include support 
>> for  RFC 4998 Evidence Records later on, at the time when they become 
>> a  widespread reality comparable to RFC 3161 TimeStampTokens (which 
>> are  widely implemented).
>
>A standardized way to put some data and their evidence record into a 
>single file would be useful.
>
>Kind regards
>Tilo

That way there is a minimum, interoperable time stamp format that all compliant implementations MUST support, but we allow for additional time stamps that MAY be supported.  We need to establish a registration procedure for additional, approved time stamp formats.

How does that sound?

Steve