RE: Notary services requirements -- directions?

["Tobias Gondrom" <tobias@xxxxxxx>]

> > 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 also agree. I can understand possible problems when a company sells a
notary service and is not allowed to, but this is neither the case with
the name of the WG or the Name of the requirements - basically I like to
call the things by the best fitting name if I find one at all... ;-)

So I see no problem calling a document requirements for notary services,
e.g.

> 
> > 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.

Full ACK, although I wouldn't add too much - there will always be one
place in the world where some wording might cause legal conflicts and it
is always up to the companies to resolve these conflicts when the
implement things and sell products to local customers.


> > 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).

I also agree with Carl - this is a possible but not necessary
combination.

Tobias