Re: Notary signatures

[Derek Atkins <derek@xxxxxxxxx>]

David Shaw <dshaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> This is interesting, as I had been thinking of a service that did not
> verify the contents of the original document before notarizing the
> signature.  This service would purely be to validate the timestamp
> (and other data) in the original signature, so no need to send the
> original document which may be sensitive.

Well, there are certainly multiple services available.  You are
correct that validating the signature is not a requirement.

Jon Callas <jon@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> I like the idea of a notary signature that only signs a signature packet.
> This would mean your signer doesn't even need to see the document that's
> being notarized, which has a certain panache to it.

*smiles*

> How about if I do this:
> 
> * Write up a description of a notary signature.
> 
> * Change the "revocation target" subpacket to be a "signature target"
> subpacket so it can work double duty
> 
> How's that sound?

Sounds good to me.

-derek

-- 
       Derek Atkins
       Computer and Internet Security Consultant
       derek@xxxxxxxxx             www.ihtfp.com