RE: [dss] time-stamping protocol

[Trevor Perrin <trevp@trevp.net>]

At 10:35 AM 8/15/2003 +0100, Nick Pope wrote:
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>Trevor,
>
>The requirements document doesn't need to specify what the time-stamping
>protocol looks like.  The requirement is that we have a time-stamping
>protocol, whether it is just a profile of sign or its own protocol is open.
>
>For the moment in the Core document we do have a separate request / response
>for Time-stamping, so the statement does not reflect the current approach
>and so I suggest that this is removed.

I'll take that sentence out, but then the requirements doc says *nothing* 
about the time-stamping protocol, except that it would be good to have one.

I still think Time-stamping is easily seen as a type of Signing.  I guess 
we're not agreed on that.  I don't think we're agreed that it *isn't*, 
though.  So we can leave this vague in the requirements document, but I 
don't agree that we're committed to making it a separate protocol.

I think this is just another issue we'll need more discussion on.

Trevor