Subject: Quote for '7, 30, 100'....

From: Larry Masinter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 14:04:53 -0700

I'm trying to track down

	Richard: Point was made that archiving the result is different than 
      archiving signed data.  Suggested 7, 30 and 100 years as relevant 
      landmarks to target.  Noted that spliting up data into n of m type
scheme is a 
      completely different aspect.  

Is there a reference for the analysis of "7, 30 and 100 years" as different
problems?

Larry
-- 
http://larry.masinter.net

Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 14:04:53 -0700
From: Larry Masinter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Quote for '7, 30, 100'....
To: [email-masked]
Sender: [email-masked]

I'm trying to track down

	Richard: Point was made that archiving the result is different than 
      archiving signed data.  Suggested 7, 30 and 100 years as relevant 
      landmarks to target.  Noted that spliting up data into n of m type
scheme is a 
      completely different aspect.  

Is there a reference for the analysis of "7, 30 and 100 years" as different
problems?

Larry
-- 
http://larry.masinter.net