Subject: RE: RE: Cross review of draft ERS from LTANS WG - RE: WG Last Ca ll: draft-ietf-ltans-ers-09.txt- untilJan 23rd

From: Carl Wallace <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 09:24:16 -0500

_____  

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
On Behalf Of Denis Pinkas
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 8:50 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; Russ Housley; Tobias Gondrom
Subject: Re: RE: Cross review of draft ERS from LTANS WG - RE: WG Last Call:
draft-ietf-ltans-ers-09.txt- untilJan 23rd

Thank you for your quick response. I will make a quicker answer. You said:
 
" The ISO drafts have been discussed on the list and are referenced by this
document as a source for alternative timestamp formats".
 
Why is the ISO format insufficient ? Why was there a need to develop these
documents ?
Unless the responses to these questions are given and added to the document,

I do not think that the documents should continue to progress. 
[CRW] Can you summarize why you feel the ISO formats obviate the need for
ERS?  Other working group members have sought to use these formats as
alternatives to RFC3161 timestamps within an EvidenceRecord.