Ok. So, than this up to your judgement, Carl. - Tobias
Ps.: if you tell me to do so, I will submit a revised draft right away, otherwise Tim can progress the draft. > -----Original Message----- > From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 4:03 PM > To: Tobias Gondrom > Cc: Carl Wallace; General Area Review Team; > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > Tim Polk > Subject: Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ltans-ers-13.txt > > Thanks. I believe there is an issue of clarity here, > but as always, please take guidance from the document > shepherd. > > Brian > > > On 2007-06-01 15:20, Tobias Gondrom wrote: > > Hello Brian, > > > > Concerning the sentence in section 4.2: > > I do not see a big difference between your proposal: > > "The data (e.g. certificates, CRLs or OCSP-Responses) needed to verify > > the timestamp MUST be preserved, and SHOULD be stored in the timestamp > > itself unless this causes unnecessary duplication." > > > > And the existing text: > > "The data (e.g. certificates, CRLs or OCSP-Responses) needed to verify > > the timestamp SHOULD be stored in the timestamp itself or MUST be > > preserved otherwise." > > > > Although I do not see the need to change it, I can see no damage either. > > > > So, if this re-wording solves your comment, we can make the change. > > > > Ok? > > > > Tobias > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 1:16 PM > >> To: Tobias Gondrom > >> Cc: Carl Wallace; General Area Review Team; > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > >> Tim Polk > >> Subject: Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ltans-ers-13.txt > >> > >> On 2007-06-01 12:11, Tobias Gondrom wrote: > >>> Hello Brian, > >>> Answer/Comments inline. > >>> Tobias > >>> > >>> Ps.: I hope you do not feel your comment got ignored, cause that has > >>> never been my intention. (I just thought my explanation was > > satisfying, > >>> as you indicated in your email May-22 and closed the item > > accordingly.) > >> No problem at all - I just thought about it some more. We Gen-ART > >> reviewers > >> have a habit of looking at SHOULD and SHOULD NOT quite closely, > > because > >> we know that they can cause indecision among implementers. For > > example, > >> you could say something like this: > >> > >> The data (e.g. certificates, CRLs or OCSP-Responses) needed to verify > >> the timestamp MUST be preserved, and SHOULD be stored in the timestamp > >> itself unless this causes unnecessary duplication. > >> > >> It's up to you, I am not insisting on a change. > >> > >> Brian > >> > >> > >> > >>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 11:28 AM > >>>> To: Carl Wallace > >>>> Cc: Tobias Gondrom; General Area Review Team; > >>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > >>>> Tim Polk > >>>> Subject: Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ltans-ers-13.txt > >>>> > >>>> Triggered by seeing -14 come out: > >>>> > >>>> On 2007-05-21 20:44, Carl Wallace wrote: > >>>>>>> 1. At the end of section 4.2: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The data (e.g. certificates, CRLs or OCSP-Responses) > >>>>>> needed to verify > >>>>>>> the timestamp SHOULD be stored in the timestamp itself or MUST > > be > >>>>>>> preserved otherwise. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I find this insufficiently clear. When would it be > >>>>>> acceptable not to > >>>>>>> store these data in the timestamp, and if not done so, how > >>>>>> would the > >>>>>>> retriever know where to look? > >>>>>> [tg]: There are three main reasons why we did intentionally > >>>>>> write this up in this level of detail: > >>>>>> At first, most of the verification of a RFC3161-timestamp has > >>>>>> been documented very well in the timestamp and CMS > >>>>>> specifications. Second, ERS is open for other timestamps as > >>>>>> well (e.g. ISO-18014-x) and they may (and do) require other > >>>>>> verification data than RFC3161, plus these other formats may > >>>>>> not be able to store all the necessary information for > >>>>>> verification inside their data structures. > >>>>>> And third, as some of the verification data may be dependent > >>>>>> on the use case and country where it is verified, the WG > >>>>>> works on the I-D > >>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ltans-validate- > >>>>>> 01.txt to describe the verification and the required data in > >>>>>> more detail. > >>>>> In addition to the above, the "SHOULD be stored in the timestamp" > >>>>> recommendation is present in the spec because this is the easiest > >>>> option. > >>>>> If the timestamp contains all of the verification data, then there > >>> is > >>>> less > >>>>> work for the verifier to perform. However, this also freezes the > >>>>> verification context (if this is the only means of preserving > >>>> verification > >>>>> data). There is a companion specification that defines how to use > >>> SCVP > >>>> and > >>>>> ERS to preserve certificates and CRLs independent of a data item > >>> that is > >>>>> archived. This has a few benefits, including decreasing the > > storage > >>>> burden > >>>>> on the archive and avoiding freezing the validation context. > >>>>> > >>>> I'm still a little unhappy about the SHOULD. How does an > > implementor > >>> know > >>>> that it's OK to ignore the SHOULD? If the data is not stored in the > >>>> timestamp, > >>>> shouldn't you say that a pointer to the data MUST be stored in the > >>>> timestamp? > >>> No, this would not be good. For verification data, we have today > > what > >>> you might call like "implicit pointers" in the timestamp, i.e. the > >>> timestamp authority source name etc. gives you the information from > >>> where to receive the additional verification data like its > > certificate > >>> and CRL/OCSP. > >>> So with the timestamp this is already implicitly known and it would > > be a > >>> bad idea to force another explicit pointer to the structure. > >>> > >>> > >>> (additional personal note: in general a verification procedure of > > the > >>> timestamp must also include this data (certificate and (CRL OR > > OCSP). > >>> This can be done by retrieving the information from an online source > >>> (defined by the TSA name and address) or from the data structures of > > the > >>> timestamp or another source (e.g. a file store at the verification > >>> entity). > >>> For infinite times it is obvious that the online source will no > > longer > >>> be available. But many use cases require a long (but not infinite) > >>> storage time where renewal is absolutely necessary, but where the > >>> business scenario guarantees that the verification data will be > >>> available for the whole time. (e.g. some TSA guarantee (including a > >>> government continuation guarantee) that the service will be > > available > >>> online for a specified time, e.g. 30 years, even if the TSA closes > >>> down.) > >>> This again leads to the term SHOULD but not MUST.) > >>> > >>> > > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
