On Sep 30, 2009, at 06:25, Peter Gutmann wrote:
Stephan Neuhaus <[email protected]> writes:
Is there something that could be done that would *not* require a
TTA? (I have
almost given up on this, but it doesn't hurt to ask.)
I think you've abstracted away too much information to provide a
definite
answer, but if all you want is a proof of something being done at
time X
that'll stand up in court then what's wrong with going to a notary?
This has
worked just fine for... centuries? without requiring the pile of
Rube-Goldberg
cryptoplumbing that people seem to want to attach to it.
In this case, it's because Alice and Bob are not people, but services
in an SOA, dynamically negotiating a variation of an SLA. If that SLA
specifies, for example, that "patient records must be deleted within
three days of checking the patient out of the hospital", then it will
be somewhat impractical to go to a notary public every time they
delete a patient's record.
I completely agree with your sentiment that "cryptoplumbing" should
not be used when there are other working solutions, but in this case,
I think it will be unavoidable.
Fun,
Stephan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [email protected]
