RE: [dss] FW: Here is the TimeStamp scope question to post to the list.

At 06:30 PM 9/16/2003 +0200, Juan Carlos Cruellas wrote:
>Think that we do not have control on  the number of potential clients of
>this server. And perhaps
>some of them would request a combination of time-stamps and other things
>that none of
>the application profiles of the server have....

You assume a smart client.  I tend to assume stupid clients - a business 
will do a careful analysis and will decide what type of signatures it needs 
for a particular task.  Then it will deploy a server to produce that type.

But to get concrete, how many choices do you think we need in the core 
protocol for time-stamping?
A) 0 choices = No control - everything implicit
B) 2 choices = Timestamp/No Timestamp
C) 3 choices = Signature Timestamp / Content Timestamp / No Timestamp
D) More choices = RefsTimeStamp, SigAndRefsTimestamp, ArchiveTimestamp, etc...

Ed's last proposal was (C).  I believe Nick was in favor of (D).  I lean 
towards (A) or (B).


Trevor