LTANS WG meeting 12/4/2007 - 70th IETF - Vancouver
23 people attended the meeting in person

A. Meeting Administrativia - 5 minutes (chairs)
B. Milestone Review - 5 minutes (Tobias)
The current document suite was reviewed.  SCVP has moved on towards RFC status and so ERS/SCVP will progress.  Tobias seeks comments from NIST regarding DSSC.  WG last call planned to close 5 days following meeting for ERS/SCVP.  DSSC may be ready for last call.  LTAP and Validate to be discussed.  Planning to finish LTAP by March with working group close or recharter in May.  

C. ERS-SCVP – final status - 10 minutes (Carl)
Two drafts since last working group last call.  -04 draft included one change to the bits on the wire.  -05 primarily included editorial modifications resulting from Tobias' review.  Sample artifacts will be made available shortly after the IETF meeting and a responder may be made available in January for interop testing.

D. DSSC - status - 10 minutes (Tobias on behalf of Thomas and Susanne)
Tobias presented slides on behalf of the DSSC authors.  Tobias provided a brief overview of the protocol and disussed the need that motivated its preparation and the context in which it is used.  The changes from -00 to -01: 
In -01, the current policy is considered to be comprehensive, obviating the need to maintain, retrieve and verify against multiple policies while verifying a single evidence record. 
Tobias asked NIST folks in attendance if the draft would be of interest.  Tim noted that it would be a departure from the way things have been done in the past. However, if LTANS work were adopted strongly within the federal government they may adopt the syntax but probably not before.  Carl clarified the question and noted that input regarding whether the syntax is sufficiently expressive would be useful even if adoption were later.  Sean noted that there are ECC parameters that may reach beyond the syntax that is in the current draft.  Tobias solicited input from Sean on the mailing list.

E. LTAP update - 10 minutes
The lack of progress on LTAP was noted and the question posed as to whether or not the draft should remain on the standards track or move to experimental.  Tim noted that the indicators were such that experimental made sense and recommended that we move forward with the draft as an experimental draft.  Future work could always upgrade the draft to standards track, but this move would allow us to progress the document.

F. XMLERSL status - 5 minutes
Tobias presented slides on behalf of Svetlana and Aleksej.  New draft is aligned with RFC 4998.  Some minor differences owing to differences between ASN.1 and XML, but the mapping is essentially one to one from XML to ASN.1.  There are a few open questions.  Are there any namespaces that are required?  Some processing differences in earlier drafts have been resolved to more closely align with RFC 4998.  Future tasks will include resolution of namespace issues and references to archive objects.  The XMLERS draft has been implemented by Aleksej, but at present is the only known implementation.  Tobias solicited additional implementors and will make a similar request on the mailing list.

G. Validate document updates - 5 minutes (Tobias)
Tobias presented describing the Validate draft.  The motivation behind the draft was to clarify what verification data must be collected and provided to support verification at points in the future.  Specifically, the draft clarifies what information should be included in evidence records, archive timestamps, etc.  The -01 revision adds reference to ERS/SCVP and guidelines for using DSSC during verification.  There is still one controversial point in the draft.  There are two kinds of verification data: the certificates and revocation information.  One approach is to recognize timestamp authorities directly without maintaining revocation information.  Tim noted that not all features must be used everywhere and that deployment with either model could exist and that's not a problem.  

H. Future/Milestone recap/Wrap-up - 10 minutes (chairs)
Tobias discussed the architecture draft that was begun around the time of the Montreal IETF.  The draft aimed to provide a roadmap for the various drafts.  Tobias asked if the draft was necessary given the lack of comments on the draft to date.  Tim noted that it's relatively common to prepare roadmap drafts and there are enough LTANS specs to sustain a roadmap draft and suggested the draft could help adoption. Given length of time with no comments, the draft may be left to die.