Re: [legalxml-enotary] Example - Authenticating Request For Service

[Pieter Kasselman]
> Now, at (what I call) the technical level, certificates that conform
> to X.509 tend to interop without a problem, regardless of CPS/PS. At the
> CPS/PS level it is invariably a business decision as to whether
certificates
> are accepted. Two organisations may have completely different views on
this.
> Organisation A will be happy to accept certificates issued under different
> CPS/PS, while Organisation B may refuse to do so. This often has more to
do
> with business practices and philosophy than technical standards or even
> security. I would be surprised if it is different in the e-Notary case.

[John Messing] But on the other hand, where cross-certification is involved,
certificates may not interoperate, according to my understanding and
experience, where the CP/CPS' upon which they are based, differ, even with
the same hardware and software configurations. I thought that was the lesson
of the Federal Bridge Authority. Am I mistaken?

[Pieter Kasselman]

> So you are proposing that this TC defines the requirements by
> which any e-notary process is judged, rather than specifying what an
> e-notarized document looks like or how that document is generated and
> processed (processed in the machine sense as opposed to the processes
> surrounding the practices of the e-notary)?
>
 [John Messing]

I believe that is correct, where an e-Notary process may involve totally
machine processes as well as mixed human and machine processes.