RE: [draft-ietf-ltans-reqs-03.txt] Questions & Remarks

["HOUSSIER Loic RD-MAPS-ISS" <loic.houssier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Peter,
my remarks/questions below

Loïc

 

> > §4.1.1 
> > You talk about "acknowledgment" that have to be provided by a LTA.
> > I think these must be signed by the LTA in order to give 
> submitter an evidence that he sent data to LTA.
> > What the need of unsigned acknowledgment?
> 
> The idea behind is that the archive service has a backend 
> that provides a 'pointer' to the
> data, let's say a URI and then, independantly, and responing 
> to other requirement, there 
> may or may not be a front end that adds some security 
> envelope attesting other information. 
> 
> You can for example have a (TLS) connection that just return a URI. 
[LH]I my view, a LTA was an trusted authority, then could be able to deliver signed-notification. (analogy whith TSA). Am I really wrong ? If it's the case, and if you have the time, could you clear my mind ?




> > Nearly End of duration period of archive must be provided 
> to submitter, in order to let him change the duration if needed.
> > 
> I can parse this question? Are you saying that an archiver 
> must inform a client before the
> end of a period in order to permit an extension? 
> 
> I think that this is somewhat of of scope, since it at least 
> it can be added as an
> additional service by an archiver, but not as an essential 
> feature of the protocol.
> 
> or, when you say 'MUST inform', what does this mean? How can 
> the archiver get a proof
> of this? One may be tempted to say: May not delete before 
> explicit confirmation of
> the client. But what does this mean? Do you have an idea of a 
> protocol exchange?
[LH] I just had a problem with this. A the end of the archivation period, (if it's 30 years e.g.) how the user know that it is the end ?
Must only the user deal with that ?


> > 
> > §4.5.1
> > The confidentiality might be not necessary. By example, 
> let's think about a service that propose to archive patent. 
> What the need of confidentiality ?
> > So I propose to change "A long term archive MUST provide 
> means to ensure..." by "A long term archive MAY..."
> > 
> The term is correct: You may not have any confidentiality 
> requirements for a particular context, but
> if you have them, the server must provide the means. The 
> server cannot decide (dynamically) to forget
> about confidentiality. (Well, this is said with my limited 
> noletsch ow ze inklisch laehngwitsch.)
[LH] As you can read, my english is poor compare to yours. What I wanted to say is that an LTA could not provide means for confidentiality.
Confidentiality could be part of the front end of the service, no?

Thank you