RE: Time-stamp server. TimePrecision info

["Bill Lattin" <wlattin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree.  Let's not arbitrarily limit ourselves based on current
capabilities or applications.  We are regularly trying to overcome arbitrary
limitations in other areas - such as address space, time format problems,
cryptographic key lengths - a little extra effort here can mean a system
that will work for centuries.  NTP works well today.  Let's extend it to
work well in future applications.

Bill Lattin
TTFN & Associates

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ietf-pkix@imc.org [mailto:owner-ietf-pkix@imc.org]On Behalf
> Of Meggison, Tim
> Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 1999 10:56
> To: Tony Bartoletti; Dan Geer; ietf-pkix@imc.org
> Subject: RE: Time-stamp server. TimePrecision info
>
>
> I agree - we need to stop putting false limitations into
> standards/protocols.
>
> Rather than asking "What applications require microseconds today", let's
> turn it around and ask "Provide proof that microseconds won't be
> necessary a
> year from today."
>
> Let the market determine if it needs timestamps with the greater
> granularity.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tony Bartoletti [mailto:azb@llnl.gov]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 1999 1:37 PM
> To: Dan Geer; ietf-pkix@imc.org
> Subject: Re: Time-stamp server. TimePrecision info
>
>
> It may be true that, out of a sense of fairness, some events are
> considered "simultaneous" if they occur within the same second,
> or minute.  But 100 years ago, that may have been "days or weeks".
>
> I see technology rocketing ahead so fast my head spins.  Try, if
> you can, to imagine processor speeds and typical transmission
> bandwidths 1000 times greater than the fastest today.  It will
> not be too far off.  So I must concur with those who ask "What
> harm in allowing microseconds, or even nanoseconds, to be
> representable in the protocol?  We may not (yet) have many
> applications where such resolution (in signatures, certs, and
> authentication) is critical.  But can the same be said for
> "hours"?  Generally, no.
>
> Whatever you do, do not make a determination based upon saving
> a few bytes.  Such a decision will appear laughable in 10 years.
>
> ___tony___
>
>
> At 10:36 PM 4/2/99 -0500, Dan Geer wrote:
> >
> >We argue most about mechanism when we are least
> >reconciled with respect to requirement.  Perhaps
> >I can provide a succulent target:
> >
> >  The requirement for time is event serialization
> >  sufficient to support an economic level of recourse.
> >
> >Unremarkably, two events within the error band are
> >definitionally simultaneous -- the NYSE tick is
> >not micro-seconds but rather macro- and many events
> >are declared simultaneous in the interest of fairness,
> >to take a central example from high-value commerce.
> >
> >Is there an economist in the house?
> >
> >--dan
> >
> >
> >
>
> Tony Bartoletti                                             LL
> Center for Information Operations and Assurance          LL LL
> Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory                LL LL LL
> PO Box 808, L - 303                                   LL LL LL
> Livermore, CA 94551-9900                              LL LL LLLLLLLL
> phone: 925-422-3881   fax: 925-423-8002               LL LLLLLLLL
> email: azb@llnl.gov                                   LLLLLLLL
>