Subject: RE: TSP. Version 10

From: Hal Lockhart <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 20:43:45 -0400

> FYI, the abstract and the introduction are now as follows:
> 
> Abstract
> 
> A time stamping service allows to prove that a datum existed before 
> a particular time.

I thought you would have fixed the fact that there seemes to be a word
missing after "allows". What that word should be, ("one", "a party", "a
user", "someone", "a subscriber")I do not know.

Hal

---

From: Tony Bartoletti <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 10:38:10 -0700

Or ...

   A time stamping service supports proof that ...

Or ...

   A time stamping service provides evidence that ...

___tony___

>user", "someone", "a subscriber")I do not know.

Tony Bartoletti 925-422-3881 <[email-masked]>
Information Operations, Warfare and Assurance Center
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Livermore, CA 94551-9900

---

From: Peter Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 11:00:50 -0700

Tony,

Or,

The operator of a time stamping service *asserts* (or may *represent*, or  
may *warrant*) that...

---------

Designating something as either providing evidence or supporting 
proof claims is not something that an Internet Standard can do,
legitimately, of one takes, as legally authoritative, Michael Baum's 
scorn of X.400's (1988) International Standard's ratified specifications 
of  "proof" and "non-repudiation" security services.

A real actor may assert, with varying degrees of accountability, that
a fact is, or may be, true. It takes someone skilled in and accountable
to scientific method or legal method to take these assertions and claim 
them either as evidence or as proof of another claim.

We should not deviate from the "assertion-centric" design already made in 
the name & certificate registration arena of PKIX. A DN is just a 
collection of assertions about the registration of real-world objects
by the naming authorities. It is not evidence or proof of anything. 
Similarly, certifying a key in a certificate provides per se no evidence,
nor 
does it per se support a proof of any claim. Both name registration, and 
key certification do hold the authority accountable for their management
procedures, however, assuming one can authenticate the 
authority's messages. Time stamping should be no different.

We should remain cognizant of the fact that different Internet communities
have different presumptive arrangements concerning legal evidence and 
legal proof. Unless I am mistaken, there is no citable claim of legal
analysis 
behind PKIX,  and no claim that we are forming or complying with any 
legal standards. Citing compliance to PKIX will provide a legal forum
no more certainty that citing to X.400 1988.

Peter.

-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Bartoletti [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 10:38 AM
To: Hal Lockhart; Denis Pinkas; IETF-PXIX
Subject: RE: TSP. Version 10

Or ...

Or ...

___tony___

---

From: Tony Bartoletti <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 12:11:49 -0700

>of  "proof" and "non-repudiation" security services.

Peter,

Thank you for the admonishment.

   "A time stamping service supports assertions of proof that ..."

___tony___