Hi Lawrence, If you haven't found them already, these ID's are pretty active and you will likely find some common interest with at least some of the collaborators:
* https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cose-merkle-tree-proofs/ And two draft profiles * https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-birkholz-cose-receipts-ccf-profile/ * https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bryce-cose-receipts-mmr-profile/ On Mon, 22 Sept 2025 at 18:37, lawrence reilly <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Michael, > > Thank you for taking the time to share such detailed feedback and references. > I appreciate the context on LTANS, SCITT WG, and the existing IEC/ISO work > around time-stamping services. I’ll review those links more closely to better > understand the prior art and fit. > > My motivation with the REM Protocol is not to portray blockchain as > “magical,” but rather to explore how existing constructs (DOIs, hashes, > TXIDs) can be formally packaged and archived with long-term verifiability. I > see blockchain timestamping as one component, alongside notaries and > receipts, rather than a wholesale replacement for established trust models. > > Your point about CPU cycles and practical verification is well-taken. That’s > why I’m experimenting with layered proofs (DOI + hash + TXID) to minimize > reliance on any single ledger or entity. My aim is to complement, not > duplicate, existing timestamping solutions, while leaving an open door for > interoperability via COSE/CBOR formats. > > I’ll dig further into LTANS and SCITT, but your note helps me clarify the > scope: REM may have a role in bridging scholarly/archival artifacts with > trusted time-stamping models already in play. > > Thanks again for pointing me in the right direction. Any additional guidance > on where discussions of archival permanence + receipts would be most welcome > would be greatly appreciated. > > Thanks again, > Lawrence Reilly > > > On Mon, Sep 22, 2025, 1:30 PM Michael Richardson <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> >> lawrence reilly <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Would you suggest an alternative working group or area within IETF that >> > might be a better fit for this draft? I’d like to make sure I’m >> > engaging with the right forum for further discussion and refinement. >> >> I think you should find an organization who believes proof-of-work blockchain >> has some ethical purpose. >> >> Even if changed to a shared-ledger (like Hyperledger), time-stamp services >> do not generally involve mutually suspicious entities with sufficient >> interest to spend the cpu cycles to verify the ledger. I don't think anyone >> wouldr spend the cpu cycles to download gigabytes of data, and verify >> a block chain in order to be sure some code-signature was time-stamped >> correctly before applying the patch. >> >> So it reduces to an entity running the time-stamping service, which singly >> rooted systems such as described 20 years ago at >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/ltans/documents/ >> would apply. Such services exist today (I see Entrust, Sectigo, Adacom with >> a trivial search). IEC/ISO did some work more recently. >> So, you want COSE/CBOR format for receipts, then I'd start from LTANS, >> and you'll need at least two notaries to partipate. >> Here at the IETF, the SCITT WG might be interested, but I seem to think that >> they already have a solution. >> >> I understand that many people think that blockchain is magical, without cost, >> and will "free" you from having to make busiess relationships. >> I also want a unicorn. >> >> -- >> Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) >> Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide > > _______________________________________________ > COSE mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] _______________________________________________ COSE mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
