Re: [ltans] Harber and Stornetta expiry

[todd glassey <[e-mail]>]

On 7/17/2011 1:28 PM, Tobias Gondrom wrote:
> (Yes, ltans is close to completion. The last bit we wait for is formal 
> publication of RFC 6283, which should happen Monday or Tuesday.)
>
> I read about the scheme you describe below.
> Although I can see certain value in the linked hash chain, personally 
> I am not sure the additional value is significant enough compared to 
> let's say using multiple redundant TS (which does not require any 
> coordination between TSAs).
>
> From most of the current business scenarios I've seen the past months 
> and years, I would probably not expect a big push for the approach 
> (which of course is only my personal data set and does not exclude 
> there could be some business need out there).
>
> Best regards, Tobias

I want to start a new NTP Time Stamping WG which uses the existing NTP 
protocol as a transport for timestamps and content validation services. 
As to why this is necessary - the issue is in the Trust Factors and 
Uniform Time Service models which all involve the hosting OS as the 
intermediary between the various protocols and their services. This is a 
failure of many of the IETF's efforts, but hey it is what it is...

That said - NTP as both a time distribution vector, time verification 
vector and content controller is a natural fit.

Any interests?

Todd Glassey
>
>
>
>
> On 14/07/11 20:35, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>> I understand that LTANS is winding down, are any people interested in 
>> discussing opportunities in the wake of the above expiry?
>>
>> As I see it the advantage to the linked digest option is that it can 
>> be used to prevent default by TSAs and to provide robustness in the 
>> case that a TSA should fail. That is of course inevitable when 
>> looking at keeping records for centuries.
>>
>>
>> In particular I think there is an opportunity here for a scheme where 
>> documents were fixed with relation to two timelines. The document 
>> itself would be fixed relative to a short term timeline maintained by 
>> a chosen TSA. the TSA timeline would then be periodically (e.g. every 
>> hour) be fixed relative to a meta timeline kept across multiple TSAs.
>>
>> Forging the long term archive would require a massive multi-party 
>> default. If we can make the number of parties number in the millions 
>> default becomes inconceivable.
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Website: http://hallambaker.com/
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ltans mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltans
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ltans mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltans


-- 
Todd S. Glassey
This is from my personal email account and any materials from this account come with personal disclaimers.

Further I OPT OUT of any and all commercial emailings.