[ltans] Fwd: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ltans-xmlers-06.txt

[Tobias Gondrom <[e-mail]>]

It seems the following email did not get delivered by our mailing-list.

So posted again.
BR, Tobias



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Re: [ltans] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ltans-xmlers-06.txt
Date: 	Mon, 07 Jun 2010 19:06:38 +0100
From: 	Tobias Gondrom <[e-mail]>
To: 	[e-mail]



Dear Aljosa,

thanks a lot for the great update version 06!
I sent a few more purely editorial comments to you directly and have
identified the following questions we should resolve on the mailing-list
as other might have them as well:

1. Some more general questions about consistency of used terminology:
- There is some inconsistency in the spelling (start with capital or
small letter) of Evidence record?
Shall we use "Evidence Record" or "evidence record"
- same applies for Archive Time-Stamp/Archive Time Stamp/Archive Timestamp
- same for in-sentence use of "type" and "Type"

I have no preference, just think we should use consistent terms
throughout the draft.
In case you like, in RFC4998 when referring to a data structure we
started with the capital letter and otherwise we used timestamp /
evidence reocrd using the small letters. Maybe not the best solution
either.
As I said I have no personal preference for this.

Questions:
2. section 3.1.1. paragraph 2:
old: concatenated and a new hash value is generated from that string
(there is exception when the first list is having one hash value, then
this value is added to the next list).
new: concatenated and a new hash value is generated from that string.
There is an exception when the first list has only one hash value, in
which case this value is the root hash value).
comment: at least that's how I would understand it, otherwise it seems
to trigger an endless recursive circle.
The current wording seemed incorrect, but maybe I misunderstood s.th here?

3. section 3.2. item #2
Question: where is "canonicalization method C" defined or referenced???

4. section 3.3. item#4:
"If an archive object is having more data objects and the hash tree is
omitted, also exit with result."
Question: I am not sure why we have to exit in this case with (you
probably mean negative) result???
Do we? And if yes, why?

5. section 4.2.1
Question about "the complete content of the last ATS MUST be time-stamped"
Why is that? I thought only the old time-stamp has to be
protected/renewed with a new timestamp?
So we would not need to do this to the whole ATS structure.(btw. see
also RFC4998, section 5 does it only on the timestamp) Or do I
misunderstand s.th.?

Thanks a lot, Tobias


Ps.: unfortunately the IETF mailing-lists were down last week, so I hope
this email will now eventually be delivered.



On 01/06/10 21:15, [e-mail] wrote:
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
> directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Long-Term Archive and Notary Services Working Group of the IETF.
>
> 	Title		: Extensible Markup Language Evidence Record Syntax
> 	Author(s)	: A. Blazic, S. Saljic, T. Gondrom
> 	Filename	: draft-ietf-ltans-xmlers-06.txt
> 	Pages		: 49
> 	Date		: 2010-6-1
> 	
> In many scenarios, users must be able to demonstrate the (time) 
>    existence, integrity and validity of data including signed data for 
>    long or undetermined period of time. This document specifies XML 
>    syntax and processing rules for creating evidence for long-term non-
>    repudiation of existence of data. ERS-XML incorporates alternative 
>    syntax and processing rules to ASN.1 ERS syntax by using XML 
>    language.
>
> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ltans-xmlers-06.txt
>
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>
> Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
> implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
> Internet-Draft.
>   
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ltans mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltans
>