2.6.7 Long-Term Archive and Notary Services (ltans)
NOTE: This charter is a snapshot of the 61st IETF Meeting in Washington, DC USA. It may now be out-of-date.
Last Modified: 2004-09-07
Carl Wallace <email@example.com>
Tobias Gondrom <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Security Area Director(s):
Russell Housley <email@example.com>
Steven Bellovin <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Security Area Advisor:
Russell Housley <email@example.com>
General Discussion: firstname.lastname@example.org
To Subscribe: email@example.com
In Body: subscribe
Description of Working Group:
In many scenarios, users need to be able to ensure and prove the
existence and validity of data, especially digitally signed data, in a
common and reproducible way over a long and possibly undetermined period
Cryptographic means are useful, but they do not provide the whole
solution. For example, digital signatures (generated with a particular
key size) might become weak over time due to improved computational
capabilities, new cryptanalytic attacks might "break" a digital
signature algorithm, public key certificates might be revoked or expire,
and so on.
Complementary methods covering potential weaknesses are necessary.
Long-term non-repudiation of digitally signed data is an important
aspect of PKI-related standards. Standard mechanisms are needed to
handle routine events, such as expiry of signer's public key certificate
and expiry of trusted time stamp authority certificate. A single
timestamp is not sufficient for this purpose. Additionally, the reliable
preservation of content across change of formats, application of
electronic notarizations, and subsequent notary services require
The objective of the LTANS working group is to define requirements, data
structures and protocols for the secure usage of the necessary archive
and notary services. First, the requirements for the long-term archive
will be collected. Based on that information we will develop a protocol
to access archive services supplying long-term non-repudiation for
signed documents and define common data structures and formats. Upon
completion of the archive-related specifications, we will address
'notary services' in a similar way. The term 'notary services' is not
clearly defined. The working group will determine which functions need
standards, including transformation of documents from one format to
another without losing the value of evidence, electronic notarization,
and further verification of legal validity of signed documents. We will
determine the needs via the requirements paper and act upon the results
Work done by the IETF Working Groups PKIX, S/MIME and XMLDSIG will be
used as the basis to define those structures and protocols. For example,
the Internet-Drafts "Archive Time-Stamps Syntax (ATS)" and "Trusted
Archive Protocol (TAP)" and RFC 3029, "Data Validation and Certificate
Server Protocols (DVCS)", contain applicable concepts.
Goals and Milestones:
|Done|| ||Initial requirements for long-term archive I-D |
|Done|| ||Initial data structures for long-term archive I-D |
|Apr 04|| ||Last call requirements for long-term archive I-D |
|Apr 04|| ||Revised requirements for long-term archive I-D |
|May 04|| ||Revised data structures for long-term archive I-D |
|May 04|| ||Initial requirements for notary services I-D |
|Jun 04|| ||Initial protocol for long-term archive I-D |
|Jun 04|| ||Last call data structures for long-term archive I-D |
|Jul 04|| ||Submit requirements for long-term archive to IESG as
|Jul 04|| ||Submit data structures for long-term archive to IESG as
proposed standard |
|Aug 04|| ||Revised requirements for notary services I-D |
|Aug 04|| ||Protocol revisions for long-term archive I-D |
|Sep 04|| ||Last call protocol for long-term archive I-D |
|Sep 04|| ||Last call requirements for notary services I-D |
|Oct 04|| ||Submit protocol for long-term archive to IESG as proposed
|Oct 04|| ||Submit requirements for notary services to IESG as proposed
No Request For Comments
Current Meeting Report
LTANS meeting minutes
Wallace: WG status and Archive Requirements document status briefings
- Abandoned aggressive schedule
- Three working group documents in progress: Archive Requirements document, ERS and Notary document
- Agreement: Requirements document can assert that both crypto and non-crypto are ok, but the WG work will focus on crypto mechanisms. (SC: question what about 2 of 2 with a random stream for XOR – will that meet the requirement?)
- What is Archive Policy? Is this recertification/timing policy. Timing and mechanism (signature based or hash based time stamp) and access control and access policy. Who is allowed to change archivation period is access control policy?
Masinter: Notary Services discussion
- Definition of notary debate, name being changed to data certification and validation services
- Went through the document
- Can a human notary use the document to perform their services
- Trials in CA on electronic notary. We do not know what it is: electronic assistance to notary, replacement of notary.
- Went through use cases of human notary and how electronic notary will do it.
- Specific workflows in the Notary document
- DVCS is proposed as a place to build on. Is there any prohibition on moving it from PKIX to LTANS. PKIX mail list should be asked. It seems to be experimental RFC and hence ok.
- How we got to data certification from notary?
- Long term trusted third party certification
- Debate with Chokhani on Archiving Vs. Notary. Not sure what the conclusion.
- Russ: Are you happy with the outcome.
- Larry: Seem to be happy with single service that offers archival and notary. He felts that they go hand in hand in the sense that there is no benefit to electronic notary without long temr archive.
- Carl calls on OASIS and W3 – No response.
- Collapse the archive and notary requirements document into one.
- Russ: When will the documents be coming to IESG for approval?
- Carl: Most likely not before Minneapolis. Need WG consensus first.
LTANS WG Status
Long-term Archive Service Requirements