Re: ENML v.1 Comments

[Arshad Noor <arshad.noor@strongauth.com>]

Thanks for the comments, Marc.  Let me review these with the
spec in front of me, and I'll respond to them in another e-mail;
perhaps by tomorrow.  Thanks.

Arshad

----- Original Message -----
From: "Marc L. Aronson" <maronson@notary.org>
To: "arshad noor" <arshad.noor@strongauth.com>
Cc: "rolly chambers" <rolly.chambers@tprr.com>, "Mark Ladd" <mark.ladd@addison-one.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 9:20:25 AM (GMT-0800) America/Los_Angeles
Subject: ENML v.1 Comments





Arshad: 



Please see my comments on version 1. 0, November 2, 2008: 



Line 41: Not to be irritating here, but you forgot to mention the District of Columbia. 



Lines 45-46: Please be careful using “above” or “below” in this document. These sentences would be best reworded please to avoid “above.” 



Line 172: What is “IETF RFC 2119?” You need to define this term please. 



Lines 1998-195: Why are the words Notary Public capitalized? Mark L. and I have a pet peeve over this; it’s a long story! 



Line 200: I have problems with the words “specified by law.” Just a few minutes ago I reviewed an acknowledgment for a Pennsylvania recorder of deeds. On a good day it was lousy! However it would have been possible to record using this non-standard form of acknowledgment. What about the many, many that do not conform to any law? 



Line 208: I have a problem with the word ‘legal.” Are there illegal jurisdictions? 



Line 262: I would suggest to you that in countries outside of the United States that there is more than a “modicum of formality.” You may want to re-write so as not to insult our foreign notary brothers and sisters. 



Line 276: I think you need an ‘s’ at the end of the word “transaction.”? 



Line 278: I would suggest removing the word “legally.” What do you think Rolly, is it outside of our duty here to dive in to what is or is not ‘legal?’ 



Line 279: Please add the word “and” after the semi-colon. It is common practice to do this when generating a list of bullet points and upon getting to the second to last bullet point. 



Line 280. Replace to semi-colon with a period please. 



Line 288: What about adding “or in combination with paper?” 



Line 289: Here is where I show my tech ignorance: What are we verifying here please? “…software perform the verification…” 



Line 306: “improvements?” What is an improvement? eNotarization can be or is different than paper notarization, but is it an improvement? By what metrics? 



Line 319: Is the word “typing” going to come back to bite us some day? Is mentioning this one form of technology too restrictive? 



Line 324: “It is believed…” Hoped? Some other word? I think that “believed” is too optimistic. 



Line 342: Arshad, I’m still thinking about the statement in this line about multiple documents/notarizations; maybe I’m confused. 



Line 346: If you want to stay on my Christmas card list you’ll add to this list “notary” [experts]! 



Line 357: There is an extra space between “The” and “first.” 



Line 496: It is possible that a single document, containing two signatures, to be notarized by two separate notaries public, at two separate locations (or the same location) using two forms of acknowledgment. Or am I missing a point here? 



Line 542: I think we are being to restrictive using the term “government issued.” Maybe the word “approved?” 



Line 554: If we remove “…as required by law…” I think the sentence still works. 



Line 569 and previous 424: I do not know anything about XML. In line 424 the date is expressed as “ 2007-02-07 .” In line 569 the description states “ February 07, 2007 .” Even if all of this is OK, I’ve never seen anyone write the date using “07” after the word “February.” 



Line 4964: It is interesting for me to note the omission of “time-of-day.” While in the paper age this had little relevance (you would not see this on a paper notarized document), in the electronic age you can hardly avoid the time of day. In fact using the time of day, whether it be a US time zone or GMT (Zulu) time, is what a computerized system does well. The time of day is touted by vendors as part of their security/audit system. 



Line 5288: Please replace “it” with “a bond.” 



Line 5496: Good idea Arshad. 



Line 5678: Arshad, should the sentences starting “This is because…” and ending in line 5680, that was cut and pasted from line 5639, be exactly the same in this section about states? 



Line 6246 and 47: Arshad, no matter how far out one goes in this country (rural area), there will still be a municipal and county name. Then again I may be over my head here with XML rules or something. 



Line 6251: I have a problem with the use of the term “full name.” My full name (Marc Louis Aronson) and the name that I am commissioned (Marc L. Aronson) are different, at least in the notary world (not in a court of law; that’s a different story). 



Line 6468: I know people who would fight with you about this, but not me! “…relatively easy to distinguish.” 



Line 6488: Arshad, with all due respect, this is hype. It has always been important that a person understand what they are signing, notarized or not, going back pretty much forever. It is not more important now just because the technology we use to create the document has changed. Why would it be? (Sorry for the lecture.) 



Line 6490: Yes, I can’t wait for the first court case. You are ever so right here. 



Line 6491: “…accept the responsibility…” Rolly: How is this different from the paper world? 



Line 6500: I’m still not real sure why XPath has been excluded, but I’m sure that Mark L. can straighten me out. I need pretty pictures, something down at my level! 





And that is all I have to say about this today . I was not really sure what kind of comments you were looking for. The lines and lines of XML code do nothing for me. I hope that I have not wasted your time having you read all of this. 



Have a Happy Thanksgiving. 



Marc A.