RE: [dss] Fwd: RE: UPU CPC EPM Positioning Proposal vis-a-vis the OASIS DSS

[Trevor Perrin <trevp@trevp.net>]

At 10:09 AM 7/10/2003 +0100, Nick Pope wrote:
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>Steve,
>
>There are two aspects of requirements that I suggest need to be identified
>separately in the requirements document
>
>a) Requirements for a time-stamp or time-mark to be applied to a digitial
>signature (which is currently addressed in the requirements document)
>
>b) Requirements for a service which provides a time-stamp similar to RFC
>3161 (which needs to be added).

As far as the format of the token, isn't that discussed in 3.1.2 and 
3.2.2?  As far as the protocol that produces the token, we discussed it at 
least a little bit (see below), and I hoped at least you and I were in 
agreement we could use the Signing protocol for this?

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dss/200305/msg00075.html
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dss/200305/msg00076.html

Trevor