RE: Notary services requirements -- directions?

["Carl Wallace" <cwallace@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> From: Larry Masinter [mailto:LMM@xxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 7:25 PM
> Subject: RE: Notary services requirements -- directions?
> 
> Personally, I don't think we get into too much trouble using 
> the word 'Notary' in the title of the working group or even 
> in the title of a document here and there, as long as we're 
> clear -- after all, it's a term that's been used already in 
> the industry, and we're not particularly offering those 
> services for sale, in any case. 

I don't mind the title either.  
 
> I think the requirements document might note that the term 
> may have restricted use in some legal jurisdictions, and I 
> think it is reasonable to add some wording to that effect.
> 
> Are time-stamping services associated with unsigned data out 
> of scope, because they're already covered?

I'm not sure what you mean out of scope.  If you mean outside the scope for
new specification work, I think so.  If you mean outside the scope of what
we may refer to as a notary service, I don't think so.  Timestamping seems
like a fundamental component.  We've explicitly included support for
unsigned data in the archive discussion and since those have so far been
discussed pretty much solely in terms timestamp solutions, I think this is
in scope (if already covered elsewhere).  
 
> Are combined archive-and-certification services (which 
> archive data and also provide for the certification of the 
> data archived) out of scope?

I think this combination is very much in scope.  It seems natural for the
data certification service we define to be capable of verifying the
structures defined for long-term archive purposes.  For some purposes, this
combination may be invest too much trust in a single entity.  For other
purposes, it seems like the ideal pairing (e.g. a binding that verified the
evidence record upon data retrieval).

> 
> Larry
>