Our objections to draft ERS

[<Libor.Dostalek@xxxxxx>]

>From my point of view the complex impression of this draft is very good.
I was really pleased to see that this is already the proposal standard. 

I could not cope with this sentence: "A time-stamp is requested only for
the root hash of the hash-tree" for a long time. But after some time, I
consider it to be a good idea. If I think it over, the publishing of the
root hash-tree in newspapers every week is interesting, but the
"classical" time stamp acc. to  RFC-3161 can easily temporarily replace
it if containing the week hash.

1. Objections

-  I do not understand, how documents with long-term signatures will be
archived (RFC-3126). When archiving long-term signed document to the
TAA, the renew of particular digital signatures acc. to RFC-3126 will be
finished and the whole structure will be stored as data (as Archived
data object)? And after this, it will be renewed as the Archive Time
Stamp Chain? I would like this solution!

-   Or only digital signatures will enter the Archive Time-stamp
calculation as it is in RFC-3126? I would invite some examples, which
will make clear the meaning (for example in appendix). 

-  Evidence record: this structure does not contain the identification
data of the archived document. How could you find such document in the
archive? 

- Archive Time-stamp, 3.1 Syntax: If I understand well: if the
reducedHashtree item misses, there is the time stamp from the document
instead of from the root-hash tree. If it is true, it should be
described here.   

2. Little objections
- "Archive Time-Stamp" collides with the same expression with different
meaning in the RFC-3126. I would recommend to adjust the name slightly.
- chap. 1.2, paragraph 2: Instead of the ETS chain it should be ERS
- chap. 1.2, paragraph 5: "In the case of Time-Stamp Renewal the ..."
Change to "In the case of simple Time-Stamp Renewal the ..."
- chap. 1.2, paragraph 6: "Time-Stamp renewal is not sufficient ..."
Change to "The simple Time-Stamp renewal is not sufficient ..."
- chap. 1.4, paragraph 2: "A multitude of data objects.." change to "A
multitude of archived data objects.."
- chap. 4.2 from paragraph:
"   4. Concatenate each h(i) with ha(i) and generate hash values 
      h(i)' = H (h(i)+ ha(i)). For multi-document groups, this is:
        h(i_a)Ć = H (h(i_a)+ ha(i))
        h(i_b)Ć = H (h(i_b)+ ha(i)) etc"

There is the non-ASCII character "Ć", which various readers could view
in a different way. I would recommend to change it for some other ascii
character (e.g. for " ' ").


Libor & Marta