Re: [ltans] Harber and Stornetta expiry

Tobias Gondrom <> Sun, 17 July 2011 20:28 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6062C21F8686 for <>; Sun, 17 Jul 2011 13:28:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -94.741
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-94.741 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.620, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_LWSHORTT=1.24, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pq2cVUxsXFFE for <>; Sun, 17 Jul 2011 13:28:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CF1B21F85B8 for <>; Sun, 17 Jul 2011 13:28:31 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default;; b=c8OwwG4yrYRUbhamDj0V8AlPHKuuhpJRQXi6MO1VI2isl0l4MM3ET5zRNNz3XdmBwkzlv8uYBbv/nJECXdzZUzkN8LPFA8A15g/WIN5AG9nUIJyQUJT4WbKJetKj7P0J; h=Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:Subject:X-Priority:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type;
Received: (qmail 23585 invoked from network); 17 Jul 2011 22:28:21 +0200
Received: from (HELO ? ( by with (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 17 Jul 2011 22:28:21 +0200
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 21:28:21 +0100
From: Tobias Gondrom <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110627 Thunderbird/5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 4 (Low)
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------060101010906060605070605"
Subject: Re: [ltans] Harber and Stornetta expiry
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: LTANS Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 20:28:32 -0000

(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

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:
> _______________________________________________
> ltans mailing list