RE: Specification Schema extract - persistent sigs

[James Bryce Clark <jbc@lawyer.com>]

<Dale>
>I agree with what Marty says above but would like to add a point
>that explains the "business significance" of the persistent
>and nonpersistent distinction. Consider auditing/archiving.
>If nonpersistent forms of confidentiality, authentication,
non->repudiation and so on are used, no archival records of 
>signatures, for example, may remain to provide evidence, 
>if a dispute were to arise.  Requiring persistent signatures 
>means that such records will remain for some agreed upon 
>time. * * *  This is not _just_ a technical issue.
</Dale>

I'm not qualified to know under which circumstances the 
artifacts of a signature or the like are _separated_ from the archived
copy of a record.   Clearly, such a separation could cause 
problems.   Users may wish to prove from the archive that a message 
was (or was not) DSIG signed -- and perhaps to what part of the message the
signature was hashed.

However, signatures is the easy one.   The transactional autopsy issues may
be a bit more complex than the discussion has suggested.  Some parameters
may only be relevant as a document is received -- and if it makes it
through the BSI and business rules of the recipient, that may be the end of
the lifetime of that parameter.  As business process designers, what are
your views about the persistent consequences of failure to comply with the
parameters?  

E.g., After a request / response offer-and-acceptance transaction is
completed, and both BSIs validate the documents according to their business
rules, the parties are going to ship the widgets, pay the invoice, etc.
That having happened, do we think it is a good or bad thing if one of the
transactors says later,  

I have looked at my message archives, and I see that you sent your response 

     [alternative 1] without archiving it, which violated my 
     isNonrepudiationRequired=Yes parameter requirement 
     in our pattern. 

     [alternative 2]  unencrypted which violated my 
     isConfidentialSomethingOrOther=Yes parameter 
     requirement, so now my competition know I'm trying to 
     unload widgets at a lowball price.

My BSI did accept your response, and we shipped and you paid.  My BSI
apparently didn't notice that you failed to [archive/encrypt] the document;
 but now I have noticed it, in my retrospective audit of the log.  

     [alternative A]   So I want to undo the deal and please send 
     me back my twelve containers of widgets.  

     [alternative B]   So, while the deal stands, I'm going to sue   
     you for not [archiving/encrypting].

Jamie