LTANS WG meeting 3/20/2006
Approximately 15 people attended the meeting in person
8 people not physically attending participated via Jabber

Intro (slides: 1 - LTANS.ppt)

The introduction consisted of a review of activities since the Vancouver
meeting and a review of what needs to happen between now and the Montreal
meeting.  All of the activities that were to follow the Vancouver meeting
are still open (along with one new item).

Two revised drafts were posted since Vancouver and 1 new draft was posted.
A new version of ERS was circulated in February with a successor to follow 
this meeting.

Jabber was used during the meeting for the first time.  Logs can be found at:
http://www.ietf.org/meetings/ietf-logs/ltans@rooms.jabber.ietf.org/2006-03-20.html

(The Milestones presentation was moved to the end of the session)

ERS Status (slides: 3 - ERS.ppt)

Carl presented slides on behalf of Tobias.  Version -06 will address comments
received on the mailing list from Young and Santosh.  Version -06 should be
suitable for WG last call.  Interoperability tests between two implementations
have been conducted successfully.  One attendee (Aleksej) has implemented an
XML version of ERS.  Via Jabber, Greg asked if an XML version was planned.  Tobias
believes this will require little work but should follow submission of the ASN.1 
version to the IESG.  Aleksej has provided his XML schema to Santosh and will
also provide the schema to Tobias.  

An encoding error in the sample messages posted to the list was discussed.  There
was agreement that the encoding in the sample was faulty and that the [0] tag
on the reducedHashtree field should appear as an IMPLICIT tag, not as an EXPLICIT
tag.

There are open concerns with regard to the encryption mechanism.  The mechanism has 
received little analysis and was not part of the interoperability tests that have been 
conducted.

Wording associated with accomodations for non-3161 timestamps has been clarified for 
version -06.

LTAP (slides: 4 - LTAP.ppt)

Aleksej presented slides describing the LTAP specification.  In the diagram on slide 2
there is no assumption that all services behind the TAS are "trusted".  LTAP is viewed
as a means of requesting an evidence record with other services distributed.  

LTAP does not hold only data, but also holds metadata.  Current aim is to define the
data that is necessary to start the archiving process while providing clients control
over parameters associated with archive data.

Questions were asked whether archive submission is a simple file upload (possibly 
using FTP or SMTP).  This may be possible but binding to metadata could be a problem
with that approach.  Larry noted that there are potentially attacks based on changing
the meaning of metadata.

PKI Artifact Retention (slides: 5 - PKI Artifact Retention.ppt)

Carl presented slides describing a new draft similar to the SCVP/ERS draft.  Both
drafts aim to define mechanisms that allow verification data to be decoupled from
evidence records.  This draft describes a binding of certificates and evidence records
and includes a set of object classes and attributes to contain the resulting objects.
An appendix to the draft defines mechanisms that aim to simplify the archiving of 
revocation information.  Russ noted that since these mechanisms are non-compliant with
PKIX specifications that coordination between the groups is necessary.

Milestone review (slides: 2 - LTANS Milestones.ppt)

Milestones were reviewed and will be reset.  The new milestones are as follows:

	- ERS WG Last call: immediately
	- LTAP: new version by end of April, WG last call by end of year
	- SCVP/ERS: WG last call by August
	- PKI artifact retention: WG last call by August
	- Notary docs: work suspended pending newfound interest 
	- WG shutdown: April 2007

Jabber attendee name to Jabber handle mapping:
	Young -> yetheridge
	Santosh -> chokhani
	Tobias -> tobias
	Larry -> masinter
	Greg -> greg