Skip to main content

Syntax for Binding Documents with Time-Stamps
RFC 5544

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:


From: The IESG <>
To: RFC Editor <>
Cc: The IESG <>, <>,
Subject: Re: Informational RFC to be: 

The IESG has no problem with the publication of 'Syntax for binding 
documents with time stamps' <draft-santoni-timestampeddata-05.txt> as an 
Informational RFC. 

The IESG would also like the IRSG or RFC-Editor to review the comments in 
the datatracker 
related to this document and determine whether or not they merit 
incorporation into the document. Comments may exist in both the ballot 
and the comment log. 

The IESG contact person is Tim Polk.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:

The process for such documents is described at

Thank you,

The IESG Secretary

Ballot Text

Technical Summary

   This document describes a syntax which can be used to bind a generic 
   document (or any set of data, not necessarily protected by means of 
   cryptographic techniques) to one or more time-stamp tokens obtained 
   for that document, where "time-stamp token" has the meaning defined 
   in RFC 3161. Additional types of temporal evidence are also 

Working Group Summary

  This document is not the product of any IETF WG.

Protocol Quality

  The documents were reviewed by Tim Polk for the IESG.  Carl Wallace
  also reviewed the document for conflicts with the LTANS working group.

RFC Editor Note

  The IESG thinks that this work is related to IETF work done in the
  Long-Term Archive and Notary Services (ltans) WG, but this does not
  prevent publishing.


  This RFC is not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard.
  The IETF disclaims any knowledge of the fitness of this RFC for
  any purpose and notes that the decision to publish is not based on
  IETF review apart from IESG review for conflict with IETF work.  The
  standards track specification RFC 4998, Evidence Record Syntax (ERS),
  specifies an alternative mechanism.  Readers are encouraged to also
  review RFC 4998 when evaluating the suitability of this mechanism.
  The RFC Editor has chosen to publish this document at its
  discretion.  See RFC 3932 for more information.

RFC Editor Note