[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [legalxml-enotary] Re: ENML v.1 Comments
|
Arshad: My responses to your
responses are in this font, and blue, below: -----Original Message----- Marc/All, Please see responses below. Let me know how to proceed with the questions I have on open items. Thanks. Arshad Arshad Noor wrote: > 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 > Corrected. Thank you. > > > Lines 45-46: Please be careful using “above” or
“below” in this document. These sentences would be best reworded
please to avoid “above.” > This is standard text provided by OASIS
as part of their specifications templates; I will copy
Mary McRae on this e-mail so she can respond to your
comment. If OASIS comes up with text that addresses your
concern, I will replace it. Noted. > > > Line 172: What is “IETF RFC 2119?” You need to define
this term please. > Its referenced on lines 242-243. Found it; sorry. > > > 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! > No particular reason. I've treated
the title much like I might any official title, such as
"Peace Officer", "Mayor", "Sheriff", etc. Is there
a convention I ought to follow? You
can leave it alone, I was just being difficult. Our internal style guide would not
mandate a cap ‘N’ for notary. (Nor would we capitalize peace office,
mayor or sheriff unless perhaps specifically mentioning the person by name:
Mayor Arshad, Sheriff Marc.) Does OSIS have a style guide that addresses this? > > > Line 200: I have problems with the words “specified by
law.” Just a few minutes ago I reviewed an acknowledgment for a > In http://www.sos.ca.gov/business/notary/notary_ack.htm.
I haven't researched the other 49 states
and DC, so I chose to be conservative on this.
However, I have changed it to "specified by law in some
states"; is that OK? How about: “may
be specified by law in some states” > > > Line 208: I have a problem with the word ‘legal.” Are
there illegal jurisdictions? > Removed. Thank you. > > > Line 262: I would suggest to you that in countries outside of the > > Rewritten to state: "Requiring a
modicum of formality in the – perhaps more than a modicum in
others - it...." Thank you. > > Line 276: I think you need an ‘s’ at the end of the
word “transaction.”? > Corrected. Thank you. > > > 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?’ > Removed the words "legally
admissible". Thank you. > > > 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. > Corrected. Thank you. > > > Line 280. Replace to semi-colon with a period please. > Corrected. Thank you. > > > Line 288: What about adding “or in combination with
paper?” > Replaced with "which can be used in
conjunction with or without paper-based notarized documents" Thank you. > > > Line 289: Here is where I show my tech ignorance: What are we
verifying here please? “…software perform the
verification…” > The software is, initially, verifying
that the notary's signature covers the rest of the
notarized document and that the document has not been modified
since the notary signed it. If there is a second
signature and a second notarial certificate, the ENML should
verify the first notary's signature correctly, and allow
for a second notary's signature to verify the second
signature and notarial certificate's content. Understood. I think I need to mention this somewhere
in the "Background" section; let me think about the most
appropriate place to put this statement. Thank you. > > > Line 306: “improvements?” What is an improvement?
eNotarization can be or is different than paper notarization, but is it an
improvement? By what metrics? > Changed to "...enabling
improvements in the speed of creating, verifying and processing eNotarized
documents;". That works; thank you. > > > Line 319: Is the word “typing” going to come back to
bite us some day? Is mentioning this one form of technology too restrictive? > Change from "by the typing in
legally-admissible text" to "by entering relevant text". Thank you. > > > Line 324: “It is believed…” Hoped? Some other
word? I think that “believed” is too optimistic. > Changed to "hoped". Thank you. > > > Line 342: Arshad, I’m still thinking about the statement in
this line about multiple documents/notarizations; maybe I’m confused. > Currently, a document can, indeed, be
signed by multiple people as part of a single notarization
event. However, to the best of my knowledge, you cannot have multiple
documents (say an income statement and a loan agreement) covered
by a single signature of the document-signer, a single notarial
certificate and a single notary's signature. Probably not; I’ll let you know if I find an example. However, ENML actually allows for this
possibility. The <SignedDocuments> element does
actually allow for multiple documents - each within its own
<SignedDocument> element (note the singular name) - that can be covered
(technically) by a single signature of the document-signer,
notarial certificate and notary signature. But, until notarial law allows for this,
ENML-compliant software should not allow this. That's the
point I was trying to make; does that make sense? I think. Let’s see what others have to say. Should
it be reworded? > > > Line 346: If you want to stay on my Christmas card list
you’ll add to this list “notary” [experts]! > Added. :-) So, what was that address again? :-) > > > Line 357: There is an extra space between “The” and
“first.” > Corrected. Thank you. > > > 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? > Same comment as for line 342. Noted. > > > Line 542: I think we are being to restrictive using the term
“government issued.” Maybe the word “approved?” > Added "Produced Approved
Identification Document" as a choice. Thank you. > > > Line 554: If we remove “…as required by
law…” I think the sentence still works. > Corrected. Thank you. > > > 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.” > The format of the content in Line 424 is
required; the explanation in LIne 569 is mine.
I've corrected it to say "February 7th, 2007". Thank you. > > > 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 > Corrected. Time-of-day is now
included as part of the <NotarizationDate> element. Thank you. > > > Line 5288: Please replace “it” with “a
bond.” > Corrected. Thank you. > > > Line 5496: Good idea Arshad. > Thank you. You’re welcome. > > > 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? > Removed the repetition. Thank you. > > > 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. > No, this is not an XML rule; just a
processing rule made for consistency in creating ID values.
While you are correct about US-based locations, I didn't want to
presume for international countries, Marc. I know that rural
places in necessarily have municipality or county
names. They do have "District" names.
Nonetheless, technology should allow for a catch-all if no rule satisfies the
condition, to avoid error conditions in software processing.
Hence the requirement for the "XX" value here. Understood. (I have an eye doctor appointment tomorrow; maybe he
can cure my short sightedness!) > > > 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). > Changed to "use the name of the
Notary Public by which he/she is commissioned to perform his/her official
duties.." Thank you. > > > Line 6468: I know people who would fight with you about this, but
not me! “…relatively easy to distinguish.” > Added "(depending on the technology
used in the document)" to the end of the sentence. Thank you. > > > 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.) > No need to apologize. You are
correct. I will tone it down. What do you think of the following? Works for me; thank you. "It has always been imperative that
document-signers clearly understand what they are signing. While
it is easier for document-signers to “see”
what they are signing when it is on paper, signing an electronic document
displayed on a computer screen raises potential issues about
whether document-signers are signing what they
“see”. eNotarized documents are expected to usher in a new age for trusted
transactions. It is imperative that software clearly show
document-signers what they are signing, and that
eNotarized/eWitnessed documents hold up to legal scrutiny by non-technical
people in courts". > > > Line 6490: Yes, I can’t wait for the first court case. You
are ever so right here. > It is my hope to avoid this, but humans
are ingenuous and unpredictable... Indeed. > > > Line 6491: “…accept the responsibility…”
Rolly: How is this different from the paper world? > Changed to "..accept ENML." Thank you. > > > 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! > I need to do a better job of explaining
this. The 60-day Public Review period for the
specification will give me time to come up with examples and
pictures. I know Abdias Lira had problems with this. As a
technologist, I understand his frustration; but when I put on my
"man-on-the-street" hat on, I see this as fraught with
problems. I will try to come up with a presentation to explain this
(during the PR period). If I am in the same boat
as Abdias then I feel better. (Of course when it comes to technology he is the
captain, I’m just the guy who scrubs the deck!) > > > > 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. > This is exactly what I hoped for,
Marc. THANK YOU! I do hope that those with knowledge of XML
will give the spec the same attention you gave the non-XML
parts of the document. I would be interested
in seeing their comments; it might help me with my understanding of XML and
what is being done here. > > > Have a Happy Thanksgiving. Thank you, and the same to you too. Thank you. Arshad Marc |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]