Subject: Space stamping protocol

From: Eric Norman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 15:41:25 -0600 (CST)

So, we have a need for time stamping services and the associated
protocols.

Can we use GPS satellites and receivers to provide a space stamping
service?

It might be useful for the nuclear launch scenario or alibis.

Eric Norman

		"I may be just a butterfly,
		 but watch out if I flap my wings".

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 15:31:09 -0800

Eric,
The BERT Token was the first attempt at this and didn't fair to well here
with this crowd. BERT put in place a time and space encoding scheme that we
called TimeAndSpace96. It disclosed a full set of time data and location
data representation structures as the core of the BERT event representation
token.

The idea ultimately was that the TSA was to be made interoperable on other
Token Structures and so it would support the use of our proposed 4-D
logging/representation nomenclature. perhaps its time to finally file this
draft for the use of extended (BERT-II) tokens with the TSA... Hmmmm

Todd Glassey

---

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 21:54:54 -0500

>It might be useful for the nuclear launch scenario or alibis.

PKIX adopted a time stamping protocol not because it is an 
infrastructure service in support of non-repudiation, which is a 
common function for PKIs.  A "space stamping" protocol would not seem 
to offer a service which is intrinsically related to PKI, and thus 
would not seem to be a suitable PKIX work item.

Steve

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 06:48:56 -0800

Actually Stephen I disagree. ***You*** may claim that this was done as a
political statement to enable the use of signature verification relative to
a time stamp, but in fact - the only real value that timestamps have is as
an evidentiary marque for after the fact non-repudiation.

There is no other commercial use for them in PKI as the decision support
processes for "is this signature any good" are easier and cleaner to
implement as applications-ware rather than as network component.

Not that timestamps are not important - they are critical, but for audit
based proofing, i.e establishing a document's feature point's in time.

Todd

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 09:05:00 -0800

Stephen,
since you have such an aversion to my creating new terms without defining
them first,  let me define this one:

"Feature Points" - Characteristics by which an object, entity, or generic
thing may be identified or characterized; and in this case it refers to the
times when the document was created, received and opened or edited...

Todd

---

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 17:17:37 -0500

>an evidentiary marque for after the fact non-repudiation.

"Political statement?" No, it was the technical rationale that 
motivated pursuing this activity within PKIX.

"after the fact non-repudiation?" as opposed to a priori repudiation? 
remember, Todd, clear expression helps make you point, verbosity 
obscrues it.

>implement as applications-ware rather than as network component.

NR is typically viewed as an application layer service, and the TSP 
is an application layer protocol, so the comments immediately above 
seem irrelevant to this discussion.

>based proofing, i.e establishing a document's feature point's in time.

There is a substantial body of technical literature describing the 
utility of time stamps in support of NR. The terminology you employ 
immediately above is largely absent from that literature.

Steve

---

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 16:34:26 -0500

>times when the document was created, received and opened or edited...

Todd,

I object to neologisms and the use of words or phrases that have been 
arbitrarily capitalized to impart a sense of greater import, even 
when accompanied by definitions.

Steve

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 06:24:00 -0800

Stephen - Its time for you to be replaced as the WG Chair. Take this as an
official motion before the Group.

This WG above all others needs term limits on how long a WG Chair can sit on
it and I would like to propose that your time is up and that we need fresh
blood at the top.Perhaps from someone more adequately representing the rest
of the World since the WG now is chaired by you and Tim (A US Government
Employee). Maybe someone like Nick Pope or another. Ian Lloyd of the
OpenGroup would be a good choice as well. He is the Director of Security
Verticals within the OG and it would be very powerful for the IETF to get a
liaison with them as well since they own the UNIX Trademark and its
validation suites amongst other things.

Either way - its time for you to go on to some other role. You have been
this WG Chair for too long now.

TODD

---

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 17:03:19 -0500

>official motion before the Group.

You still don't seem to understand how the IETF works. You may appeal 
to the IESG if you don't feel that a WG chair is appropriately 
fulfilling the job. Note that a chair disagreeing with a WG member, 
or questioning a WG member's ability to articulate an argument, or 
questioning the technical merits of an argument does not generally 
qualify as grounds for replacement.

WG's don't vote on chairs (nor do we formally "vote" on anything) and 
no "motions" are entertained.

>this WG Chair for too long now.

Feel free to discuss this with the Security Areas directors, directly.

Steve