Subject: Re: Usage of TDTs

From: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 08:27:24 -0700

Thanks Michael. This is a very good suggestion and we support it.

BTW, we have always intended to interoperate between BERT physical tokens,
the BERT Protocol API  and the TSA architecture. There is only a
representation filter to convert structures into event queues using the ZAPC
Draft Protocols... The idea is that generally all of the core enablement
protocols that make up what I refer to as the "Basic Transaction Toolkit" -
that is to say, the primary PKIX4, OCSP, DCS/BERT, etc. should interoperate
together. The intent is to package the core suite as a  PKI-Based Event
Authentication and Assurance "toolkit". This way, the end users get to use
what they want without having to jump through too many painful hoops.

Also, I really believe that the WG' Chairs should encourage us as a
collective group to build and release a "recommendation for use models"
document for the core suite of protocols that we develop.  This
recommendation is likely to be more important as a collective document since
it would be the first in a series of potential IETF-PKIX Recommended
Technologies Brief's that other standard's orgs could rely on. Talk about
adding some value to what we do here, Eh?

In conjunction with producing such a document, we also will need management
buy-in  into selecting ambassadors (formally that is) to the other standards
groups and get our efforts some serious partnering!

What this does in my estimation, is critically reinforces the value of the
PKIX and its process. Also it starts to really make us part of the
operational standards process, instead of just the geeks at the bottom of
the food-chain that came up with the core enablement.

I would propose that Stephen and Warwick add this concept to the agenda in
Oslo and that PKIX start looking at how we package to totality of our
efforts for our friends and sibling WG's into a more "effective"
presentation model, now that we have the core reference layer pretty well
defined.

Todd

----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Zolotarev <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>; Paul
Hoffman / IMC <[email-masked]>; Denis Pinkas
<Denis.Pinkas[[email-masked]]>; Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 1999 7:27 PM
Subject: RE: Usage of TDTs

> Off-the-records.
>
> Following your discussion is a real pleasure and a very educative
experience. Pity I'm not going to see the live show in Oslo :).
>
> The TDT and general time stamping issue has been around for long enough to
make everybody shudder when there is yet another message in the mailer. The
amount of emotions involved and readiness to defend one's position makes me
believe that we probably has a space for two here, instead of all jamming
into a single cabin. To put it simple - 1) why don't we accomplish the
current TSA draft, and see for ourselves how it performs, and 2) let Todd
with the help of the WG to delineate another approach which he is trying to
foster (local timestamping infrastructure + TDT etc).
>
> I do not see much harm in doing that, as the TSA draft, in its current
state
> 1. addresses at least a subset of real industry's needs
> 2. is not redundant
> 3. does not interfere with other protocols/mechanisms
> 4. insures interoperability and is expandable
> 5. does not claim to do what it does not
> 6. is just a draft, after all
>
> Apart from PKI and other techno-philosophycal issues, the another TS
mechanism would immediately gain the advantage IF its usage/implementation
is not so heavily constrained by the patents, as it happens now.

The only issue is whether the  I think that is still up in the air is
whether any of the later patens are any good and is the RE:34954 Patent's
Claim #1 fort real. If the court upholds the patents primary claim then
there is an issue and all timestamping falls under the realm of this claim.

However, if the claim is struck down for whatever reason, then timestamping
as either the Z/A/C/P Draft as well as McNeils and out BERT and NTP based
solutions will be OK.

As it happens there is a wealth of prior art but who knows.

> Michael