Re: The need for two grades of time data.

["todd glassey" <todd.glassey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Stephen and group -
----- Original Message -----

SNIP

> Stephen,
> One simple and elegant solution would be to change the name from "The PKIX
> Time Stamping Protocol" to "The PKIX TTP Time Stamping Protocol", and
allow
> other TS protocols that are not TTP in nature to progress as well.
>
> By the way, If the response is no because we only need one TTP protocol
the
> TSP protocol itself violates that rule. NTP has offered its uses
timestamps
> and many people have used the NTP protocol for timestamping for years.
What
> this means is that are production systems relying on discreet NTP TST's
for
> their validation and this has been going on for at least 8 years that I am
> aware of.
>
> And now that the old-hat NTP 3.x symmetric crypto has given way to the PKI
> based AutoKey, as in the additions recently filed by Dave Mills against
his
> NTP 4,0 Standard, the facility offered by the generic NTP 4.0 PKI Server
> does most if not all of what the TSP wants to do and it authenticates the
> time source. Oh and the real win is that there are already tens of
millions
> of NTP instances deployed out there and whether the PKIX group likes it or
> not its the way it is. So Unicast Timestamping with NTP is something that
> has been available for years but in a somewhat undocumented state.

I want everyone to understand that I am not trying to be a jerk here, I
probably should have used more benign language - I just think that with the
sheer number of NTP Servers out there already, that NTP as a common
timestamping system may actually make a lot of sense and PKIX might not be
able to stop its use to focus favor on the TSP. That's all.

T.

>