Re: [ltans] WG Action: Conclusion of Long-Term Archive and Notary Services (ltans)

todd glassey <tglassey@earthlink.net> Wed, 20 July 2011 14:48 UTC

Return-Path: <tglassey@earthlink.net>
X-Original-To: ltans@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ltans@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5387521F89BA; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 07:48:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.912, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hdrsEa+b4WDJ; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 07:48:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from elasmtp-curtail.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-curtail.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.64]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9284B21F889F; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 07:48:34 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=pVODcioVWOFJW5gsXA10jqdX8/1fjSeH1fnh33GSxmohLj6HdMJQYW12aHf6Efry; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
Received: from [207.111.209.5] (helo=[192.168.1.100]) by elasmtp-curtail.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from <tglassey@earthlink.net>) id 1QjY4f-0007wI-WA; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 10:48:34 -0400
Message-ID: <4E26EAE1.9050307@earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 07:49:05 -0700
From: todd glassey <tglassey@earthlink.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ltans@ietf.org, chair@IETF.org
References: <20110720012854.177B011E808B@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <20110720012854.177B011E808B@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ELNK-Trace: 01b7a7e171bdf5911aa676d7e74259b7b3291a7d08dfec794bc7cf3a2a1e5d338e918ffbba6988ba350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
X-Originating-IP: 207.111.209.5
Subject: Re: [ltans] WG Action: Conclusion of Long-Term Archive and Notary Services (ltans)
X-BeenThere: ltans@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: LTANS Working Group <ltans.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ltans>, <mailto:ltans-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltans>
List-Post: <mailto:ltans@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ltans-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltans>, <mailto:ltans-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 14:48:45 -0000

On 7/19/2011 6:28 PM, IESG Secretary wrote:
> The Long-Term Archive and Notary Services (ltans) working group in the
> Security Area has concluded. The IESG contact persons are Sean Turner
> and Stephen Farrell.
So there is actually no Notary's process in any of this code. No 
Notarial signing ceremony and more importantly no Notarial Organization 
as a sponsor... As such - and since the term NOTORIAL pertains to a 
legal standing, i.e. as in 'from an act from a commissioned Notary 
Public" - something this protocol has none of the representing it as a 
replacement or extension of a commissioned Notary Public is a form of 
fraud.

No I am not kidding... If you dont believe me look at California's 
Apostilles Page for certifications issued under the Notary's Commission 
to perform signings. What you will see is that a Notary is similar to 
the term Judge, when used in an official context it applies to a person 
appointed under the Notarial commission of the issuing State or Entity.

http://www.sos.ca.gov/business/notary/authentication.htm which of course 
are further controlled under the International Definition of the 
Apostilles under the Hague Convention - read it at 
http://www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=text.display&tid=37

The real issue here (and the sad one) is how much human effort went into 
this effort after the WG members were made aware of these legal issues 
with their work, and how far from the mark based on a simple reading of 
these documents that the WG ultimately landed.

Todd Glassey

> The ltans working group has completed its primary charter items, and is
> officially closing. The mailing list will be retained for future
> discussions involving ltans. The list archive will also be retained.
>
> The ltans working group was primarily focused on defining requirements,
> data structures and protocols for the secure usage of archive and notary
> services. In total the working group published five RFCs, including
> Long-Term Archive Service Requirements (RFC 4810), Evidence Record
> Syntax (ERS) (RFC 4998), Using the Server-Based Certificate Validation
> Protocol (SCVP) to Convey Long-Term Evidence Records (RFC 5276), Data
> Structure for the Security Suitability of Cryptographic Algorithms
> (DSSC) (RFC 5698), and Extensible Markup Language Evidence Record Syntax
> (RFC 6283).
>
> We would like to thank all of the IETF participants who have contributed
> to the various documents produced by the ltans working group and to the
> successful completion of these deliverables. We especially thank Carl
> Wallace and Tobias Gondrom who have chaired the working group from its
> inception.
> _______________________________________________
> ltans mailing list
> ltans@ietf.org
> 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.