[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Timestamping
Agreed, I believe that James Warner may have meant "Mandatory" in the sense
that an allowance must be made for it in the draft (ie. we can't ignore it),
not that a timestamp is mandatory for each and every EDI transaction sent
via EDIINT.
James?
Regards,
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Rik Drummond <drummond@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: 'chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx' <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
ietf-ediint@xxxxxxx <ietf-ediint@xxxxxxx>
Date: Thursday, January 22, 1998 4:27 PM
Subject: RE: Timestamping
>Knowing how we Electronic Commerce/EDI professionals are, I don't think
mandatory time-stamping will work? Anyone else?
>
>Regards, Rik
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Chris Davenport [SMTP:chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Thursday, January 22, 1998 12:25 PM
>To: ietf-ediint@xxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: Timestamping
>
>Hold on a minute, am I missing something here?
>
>I completely agree that having a timestamp is very important, but
>ALL email already has a Date: field in the RFC822 header which IMHO
>would be acceptable for most (non-critical) purposes.
>
>For critical applications, such as Pete Yeatrakas' financial one,
>the important point is that the timestamp cannot be forged or
>tampered with and so becomes the instrument of Rik Drummonds'
>"non-repudiation of submission".
>
>To achieve this the timestamp must come from a trusted source,
>a Time Stamping Authority (TSA) that will sign/encrypt the
>TimeStampToken (TST). I've just read the PKIX draft :-).
>The TST can be included as (yet another) MIME object within the
>overall EDIINT message.
>
>My point is that to make the inclusion of TST's mandatory would
>add a whole extra layer of complexity to sending an EDIINT message
>which would be unnecessary for the majority of users.
>
>By all means include a reference to the PKIX work and show
>how a TST could be included within an EDIINT message, but please
>don't make it mandatory. I don't think the EDIINT group need
>do more than that. Am I wrong?
>
>Regards,
>
>Chris.
>
>>
>>>From my point of view (non technical), it is just a sound business
>>(best) practice, especially if there are any disagreements between
>>trading partners. In the Automated Clearing House, the financial
>>community depends on something called settlement date (contained in the
>>file format), which while 24 hours long, is the key to when funds are
>>transfered, the key to the deadlines for submitting adjustments, and
>>tied to the obligations of the FI to it's customer, whether consumer or
>>corporate. That date is MANDATORY, and similar to Marc's ABSOLUTE
>>notion. Financial institutions repackage EDI information along with the
>>funds transfer, so you can see that in the ACH world, the notion of
>>timestamping is absolutely critical.
>>Best regards,
>>Pete Yeatrakas
>>
>>Rik Drummond wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks Marc...... I assume the reason for time-stamping is
"non-repudiation of submission" and ot
>>>
>>> Regards, Rik
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Marc Blanchet [SMTP:Marc.Blanchet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 1998 5:21 PM
>>> To: Rik Drummond; 'Werner, James K'; 'ietf-ediint@xxxxxxx'
>>> Subject: Timestamping
>>>
>>> In the PKIX group, there is a draft on time stamping.
>>> (ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pkix-ipki5tsp-00.txt)
>>> I was involved in the early work on it. This draft can give at least
some
>>> thoughts. I would be interested in participating in the effort.
>>>
>>> Regards, Marc.
>>>
>>> >Then get involved and make it happen. How do you see this happening?
What
>>> would the process be and who would be involved?
>>> >
>>> >Regards, Rik
>>> >
>>> >-----Original Message-----
>>> >From: Werner, James K [SMTP:James.Werner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>>> >Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 1998 1:25 PM
>>> >To: 'ietf-ediint@xxxxxxx'
>>> >Subject: RE: EDIINT WG Minutes fo the IETF Dec 98 Meeting
>>> >
>>> >imho, the "possible" need to timestamp EDI "transactions" is a complete
>>> >misstatement: timestamping is an *absolute* repeat *ABSOLUTE* (volume
>>> >added for emphasis) requirment - no waffling, no qualifications, no
>>> >'divide and conquer' strategies - timestamping is a must!.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >James K. Werner
>>> >The Boeing Company
>>> >PO Box 3707, #MS 6C-FH
>>> >Seattle, Wa. 98124-2207
>>> >phone: (425)237-6274 fax: (425)237-8510
>>> >email: james.werner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>> -----------------------------------------------------------
>>> Marc Blanchet | Marc.Blanchet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Viagenie inc. | http://www.viagenie.qc.ca
>>> 3107 des hotels | tel.: 418-656-9254
>>> Ste-Foy, Quebec | fax.: 418-656-0183
>>> Canada, G1W 4W5 | radio: VA2-JAZ
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>> pgp: 57 86 A6 83 D3 A8 58 32 F7 0A BB BD 5F B2 4B A7
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Auteur du livre TCP/IP Simplifie, Editions Logiques, 1997
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>--
>Chris Davenport chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Davros Computer Systems
>
>