Ah, that is much better.
It looks to me as if the authors may have had the idea of migrating to
a catenate scheme at some later date. After all the catenate scheme is
arguably merely a variation on the Merkle tree.
I am trying to work out if perhaps a profile of ERS would work..
There is a provision to add attributes to entries in the
ArchiveTimeStamp data structure:
ArchiveTimeStamp ::= SEQUENCE {
digestAlgorithm [0] AlgorithmIdentifier OPTIONAL,
attributes [1] Attributes OPTIONAL,
reducedHashtree [2] SEQUENCE OF PartialHashtree OPTIONAL,
timeStamp ContentInfo}
PartialHashtree ::= SEQUENCE OF OCTET STRING
Attributes ::= SET SIZE (1..MAX) OF Attribute
So maybe all that would need to be added is some way to add in info to
identify a particular hash as being catenate, coming from another
notary, etc.
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 9:19 AM, Carl Wallace <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 2/10/12 9:13 AM, "Phillip Hallam-Baker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Yes, I am aware of them.
>>
>>The problem with LTANS was that the catenate cert technology was still
>>encumbered at the time and there was a company formed to exploit the
>>patents that was very aggressive in filing lawsuits, including
>>lawsuits over stuff that they clearly had no claim to.
>>
>>
>>I was just going through the LTANS work to see if there was stuff we
>>could use.
>>
>>The big reason to not use LTANS is that they use XML signature. It
>>made sense for their approach but I don't see it as really working
>>very well with the catenate technology. You would have to fire up an
>>XML parser on each hop.
>
> There were two evidence record formats defined by LTANS, one in ASN.1 and
> (later) one in XML.
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4998 - ERS
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6283 - XMLERS
>
>
>
--
Website: http://hallambaker.com/
_______________________________________________
therightkey mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/therightkey
