Re: Notary services requirements -- directions?

[Denis Pinkas <Denis.Pinkas@xxxxxxxx>]

Larry,

> I was unaware of RFC 3029.  Should we add a reference to
> RFC 3029 as an example of what is intended in the requirements
> document? 

A requirements document should not simply be a collection of examples.
Examples can certainly be mentionned in informative annexes, but the core 
document would still need to say what needs to be supported.

RFC 3029 supports many use cases, maybe too many. A subset of RFC 3029 would 
certainly makes sense once we have define the document filling the 
requirements (which still need to be defined). RFC 3029 contains solutions 
to many problems, but it is not a requirements document.

Besides the vocabulary problem about the use of the term "notary", we would 
have first to define what would be the title and the topic of the 
requirements document. I would propose something along the following 
strawman proposal:

"e-Certification Services requirements

Abstract

This document defines the requirements for e-Certification services. Such 
services may be used when there is a need to register one or many documents 
and to certify that these documents have been duly semantically verified by 
a given person prior to registration. These persons may or may not be 
Notaries, as understood by Civil Law or Common Law. The document to be 
certified may or may not contain electronic signatures from other persons."

Denis

> Would it be reasonable to rename the document:
>
>   Data Validation and Certification Protocol Requirements
>
> and replace 'Notary' with 'Data Validation or
> Certification Service' as appropriate?
>
> RFC 3029 contains a few uses of the word 'notary', but
> only in descriptions of patents and relationship to
> prior work.
>
> Larry