Please do not reverse the question. ISO 18014-3 already exists. The WG has to
justify why it would not fulfill its needs.
I will refine my question: Why is a profile of ISO 18014-3 not adequate to
fulfill the needs ?
A profile would make sense, since ISO 18014-3 has many options.
[mailto:owner-ietf-ltans(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Denis
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 8:50 AM
Cc: ietf-ltans(_at_)imc(_dot_)org; 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
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.