Subject: Re: New test TSA available

From: [email-masked] (Peter Gutmann)
Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 15:00:40 +1200 (NZST)

"todd glassey" <[email-masked]> writes:

>Stick it (the version tag) in the token,  

But the token only allows one version value, v1, which is always present anyway
(that is, it's a non-optional field).  Thus my earlier questions, that there's
no way to indicate that you're using draft-n because it's assumed there's only
one version, v1, as per the final RFC.  That means that anything from
draft-....-01 through to RFCxxxx can only indicate use of v1.

Peter.

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 07:33:23 -0700

Peter - the token's only allowing for one version spells its demise in my
book. The legal processes of timestamping are far from formalized and with
GLB and the ECPA here in the states its a can of worms to say the least.

What that means is that any token system must be able to permute or evolve
to meet any number of event capture and representation needs or the protocol
is of such little use that there is no reason to standardize it other than
our egos.

You and many others may not like those words but since we are finally to a
place where the tokens are supposed to represent evidentiary marques, doing
anything less is foolish IMHO.

Todd Glassey

---

From: Jean-Marc Desperrier <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 11:57:50 +0200

> draft-....-01 through to RFCxxxx can only indicate use of v1.

A draft is just that, a draft.
" It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress"
And basically, you want them to become reference material.
There isn't, and hasn't to be a formalism for interoperability between versions of
a draft.

What is needed is a finalized version of this protocol in an RFC, so that _this_
becomes a reference, and something one can actually use for interoperability.
As long as this doesn't exist, the tokens can't be anything more than laboratory
experiments.
Therefore the true question is why is this RFC still not there when supposedly the
draft is on the last stages of approval since monthes, and there hasn't been any
point raised about it in this mailing list since a long time ?