Performance Review Board (PRB), 59612-59613 [E8-24065]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
59612
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Notices
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Administrator for verification/authorization
to make the change. Upon receiving
verification/authorization, the IANA
Functions Operator would then edit and
generate a new root zone file. The Root Key
Operator function would be physically
collocated with the IANA Functions
Operator, responsible for generation of the
KSK, signing the root keyset, and publishing
the public key information. The IANA
Functions Operator would also generate the
ZSK and sign the root zone file. After signing
the root zone file, the IANA Functions
Operator would send the signed root zone
file to the Root Zone Distributor (formally
Root Zone Maintainer), which, in turn,
would distribute it to the 13 root server
operators. Under this process flow, the
Administrator would perform the
verification/authorization functions as in the
other models.
Proposed Process Flow 5 (see diagram at
https://www.ntia.doc.gov/DNS/
DNSSECproposal5.pdf). This model
maintains the existing roles and
responsibilities with respect to the
management of the authoritative root zone
file.26 That is, the existing responsibilities for
editing and generating the root zone file that
now reside with the Root Zone Maintainer
would remain the same with the additional/
new responsibility of Root Zone Signer and
collocating the Root Key Operator function.
The Root Zone Maintainer would continue to
be responsible for distributing the nowsigned root zone file to the 13 root server
operators.
Thus, under this model the process would
operate as follows: After receiving a change
request from a TLD operator, the IANA
Functions Operator would process and send
a request to the Administrator for
verification/authorization to make the
change. Upon receiving verification/
authorization, the Root Zone Maintainer
would then edit and generate a new root zone
file. The Root Key Operator responsibility
would be physically collocated with the Root
Zone Maintainer, responsible for generation
of the KSK, signing the root keyset, and
publishing the public key information. The
Root Zone Maintainer would also generate
the ZSK and sign the root zone file. After
signing the root zone file, the Root Zone
Maintainer would distribute it to the 13 root
server operators. Under this process flow, the
Administrator would perform the
verification/authorization functions as in the
other models.
Proposed Process Flow 6 (see diagram at
https://www.ntia.doc.gov/DNS/
DNSSECproposal6.pdf). The proposed
process flow models one through three
illustrate the important role played by the
Root Key Operator. As presented, they depict
the RKO responsibilities as being discharged
by a single entity. In process flows four and
five, the RKO responsibilities are collocated
26 Under the Cooperative Agreement with the
Department, VeriSign submitted a proposal
substantially similar to Process Flow 5 for the
Department of Commerce’s consideration on
September 23, 2008. That proposal is pending
before the Department. This proposal is available at
https://www.ntia.doc.gov/DNS/VeriSignDNSSEC
Proposal.pdf.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:01 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
with either the IANA Functions Operator or
the Root Zone Maintainer. However,
cryptographic mechanisms exist that
theoretically would permit two or more
entities to participate in the RKO procedures,
known as multi-signature technique, no
matter where the RKO responsibilities are
located.27 Such a shared key framework is
commonly referred to as an ‘‘M of N’’
approach, in which ‘‘M’’ is the minimum
number of those entities that must participate
in order to generate and use the key in
question, and ‘‘N’’ represents the number of
entities that share control of the key. In an
M of N approach, only a predetermined
subset of the key shares is required to
generate a signature. For example, a three (3)
of five (5) scheme would include five parties
(N) with distinct key shares, but any three
(M) of the five parties are required to generate
a valid signature.28
The M of N approach could theoretically
be applied to the KSK, the ZSK, or both.
However, increasing the number of
participants under this approach increases
the complexities of the key management
process. Because the ZSK would be used
much more frequently than the KSK, Process
Flow 6 applies the M of N approach only to
management of the KSK. It should be noted
that this cryptographic approach could be
applied to any of the previous process flow
models.
Process Flow 6 depicts the multi-signature
technique as applied to Process Flow 1. The
N entities would participate in the generation
of the KSK key pair, and each would retain
a share of the private key. Generating a
signature with the KSK, such as signing a
new ZSK, would require participation of M
key shares.
Process Flow 6 does not propose specific
values for either M or N; however, these
parameters would need to be resolved prior
to implementation of such a framework. This
would entail deciding, among other things,
(a) how many total RKOs (N) would be
technically feasible; (b) what subset of these
(M) would be reasonable or appropriate to
enable reconstitution of the key; and (c) what
other attributes would be necessary from a
technical and policy standpoint to carry out
this responsibility. The Department invites
27 See Tal Rabin, IBM T. J. Watson Research
Center, ‘‘A Simplified Approach to Threshold and
Proactive RSA’’ (1998)(Rabin), https://
www.research.ibm.com/security/prsa.ps (last
checked September 24, 2008); Adi Shamir, ‘‘How to
Share a Secret,’’ Communications of the ACM,
Volume 22, Issue 11, 612-13 (R. Rivest, eds., Nov.
1979)(discussion of a mathematical model that
facilitates dividing a set of data in a certain number
pieces that allows the data set to be easily
reconstructed); T. Keisler and L. Harn, ‘‘RSA
Blocking and Multisignature Schemes with No Bit
Expansion,’’ Electronic Letters, Volume 26, Issue
18, 1490-91 (Aug. 1990)(describes one example of
a multi-signature technique).
28 See Rabin, supra note 27; for further
information on this technique see generally, Elaine
Barker, William Barker, William Burr, William
Polk, and Miles Smid, NIST, ‘‘Recommendation for
Key Management - Part 1: General (revised)’’ NIST
Special Publication 800–57 Part 1 (May 2006),
http:/ /csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/ 800–57/
SP800–57-Part1.pdf (last checked September 24,
2008) (this refers to this class of techniques as ‘‘split
knowledge procedures’’).
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
comments regarding this technique and its
application at the root zone level.
[FR Doc. E8–23974 Filed 10–8–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–60–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark
Office
[Docket No. PTO–C–2008–0040]
Performance Review Board (PRB)
United States Patent and
Trademark Office.
ACTION: Notice
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: In conformance with the Civil
Service Reform Act of 1978, 5 U.S.C.
4314(c)(4), the United States Patent and
Trademark Office announces the
appointment of persons to serve as
members of its Performance Review
Board.
Director, Human Capital
Management, Office of Human
Resources, United States Patent and
Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450,
Alexandria, VA 22313–1450.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Karen Karlinchak at (571) 272–6200.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
membership of the United States Patent
and Trademark Office Performance
Review Board is as follows:
Margaret J. A. Peterlin, Chair, Deputy
Under Secretary of Commerce for
Intellectual Property and Deputy
Director of the United States Patent and
Trademark Office.
Stephen S. Smith, Vice Chair, Chief
Administrative Officer, United States
Patent and Trademark Office.
John J. Doll, Commissioner for
Patents, United States Patent and
Trademark Office.
Lynne G. Beresford, Commissioner for
Trademarks, United States Patent and
Trademark Office.
Wendy R. Garber, Acting Chief
Information Officer, United States
Patent and Trademark Office.
James A. Toupin, General Counsel,
United States Patent and Trademark
Office.
Lois E. Boland, Director, Office of
Intellectual Property Policy and
Enforcement, United States Patent and
Trademark Office.
Barry K. Hudson, Chief Financial
Officer, United States Patent and
Trademark Office.
Jefferson D. Taylor, Director, Office of
Governmental Affairs, United States
Patent and Trademark Office.
Deborah S. Cohn, Deputy
Commissioner for Trademark
ADDRESSES:
E:\FR\FM\09OCN1.SGM
09OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Notices
Operations, United States Patent and
Trademark Office.
Margaret A. Focarino, Deputy
Commissioner for Patent Operations,
United States Patent and Trademark
Office.
Kenneth Berman, Director of
Information Technology, International
Broadcasting Bureau.
Dated: October 1, 2008.
Jon W. Dudas,
Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual
Property and Director of the United States
Patent and Trademark Office.
[FR Doc. E8–24065 Filed 10–8–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–16–P
of the Secretary of the Navy Advisory
Panel (SNAP). The Department of the
Navy published a correction notice in
the Federal Register on October 1, 2008,
announcing a change in the date and
location of the meeting. The time of the
meeting contained in the correction
notice of October 1, 2008 has now
changed.
Department of the Air Force
Active Duty Service Determinations for
Civilian or Contratual Groups
SUMMARY: On September 24, 2008, the
Secretary of the Air Force, acting as
Executive Agent of the Secretary of
Defense, determined that the service of
the group known as the ‘‘Vietnamese
Citizens Who Served in Vietnam Under
Contract With the U.S. Armed Forces
and Were Assigned to Reconnaissance
Teams and Exploitation Forces Within
the Military Assistance Command,
Studies and Observations Group
(MACVSOG), Ground Operations OP–
35, Command and Control (C&C), From
January 1964 to April 1972.’’
Shall not be considered ‘‘active duty’’
for purposes of all laws administered by
the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Contact Mr. James D. Johnston at the
Secretary of the Air Force Personnel
Council (SAFPC); 1535 Command Drive,
EE Wing, 3d Fl.; Andrews AFB, MD
20762–7002.
Bao-Anh Trinh,
Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. E8–23966 Filed 10–8–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001–05–P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Navy
Notice of Partially Closed Meeting of
the Secretary of the Navy Advisory
Panel; Correction
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Notice; correction.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy
originally published a document in the
Federal Register on September 05, 2008,
announcing a partially closed meeting
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:01 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
Dated: October 3, 2008.
T. M. Cruz,
Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate
Generals Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register
Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. E8–23946 Filed 10–8–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810–FF–P
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Colonel Caroline Simkins-Mullins,
SECNAV Advisory Panel, Office of
Program and Process Assessment, 1000
Navy Pentagon, Washington, DC 20350,
telephone: 703–697–9154.
Correction
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
59613
In the Federal Register of October 01,
2008, in FR Doc. E8–23037, make the
following changes:
1. In the first column, on page 57086,
correct the DATES caption to read as
follows:
‘‘DATES: The meeting will be held on
October 16, 2008 from 9:45 a.m. to 4:30
p.m. The morning sessions on
Acquisition Structure from 9:45 a.m.–
11:30 a.m. will be opened. The
afternoon sessions will be closed.’’
2. In the first column, on page 57086,
correct the ADDRESSES caption to read as
follows:
‘‘ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held
in Room 1E868, in the Pentagon, 1000
Navy Pentagon, Washington, DC 20350.
Public access is limited due to the
Pentagon Security requirements. Any
individual wishing to attend the
meeting must contact LCDR Cary Knox,
USN at 703–693–0463 or Colonel
Simkins-Mullins at 703–697–9154 no
later than October 9, 2008. Members of
the public who do not have Pentagon
access will be required to provide the
following information by October 9,
2008 in order to obtain a visitor badge:
Name, Date of Birth and Social Security
Number. Public transportation is
recommended as public parking is not
available. Members of the public
wishing to attend this meeting must
enter through the Pentagon Metro
Entrance between 9:10 a.m. and 9:30
a.m. Members of the public will need
two forms of identification in order to
receive a visitors badge and meet their
escort. Members of the public will be
escorted to Room 1E868 to attend the
open sessions of the Advisory Panel and
shall remain with designated escorts at
all times while on the Pentagon
Reservation. Members of the public will
be escorted back to the Pentagon Metro
Entrance at 11:30 a.m.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Submission for OMB Review;
Comment Request
Department of Education.
The IC Clearance Official,
Regulatory Information Management
Services, Office of Management invites
comments on the submission for OMB
review as required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995.
DATES: Interested persons are invited to
submit comments on or before
November 10, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should
be addressed to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Attention: Education Desk Officer,
Office of Management and Budget, 725
17th Street, NW., Room 10222,
Washington, DC 20503. Commenters are
encouraged to submit responses
electronically by e-mail to
oira_submission@omb.eop.gov or via fax
to (202) 395–6974. Commenters should
include the following subject line in
their response ‘‘Comment: [insert OMB
number], [insert abbreviated collection
name, e.g., ‘‘Upward Bound
Evaluation’’]. Persons submitting
comments electronically should not
submit paper copies.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section
3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires
that the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) provide interested
Federal agencies and the public an early
opportunity to comment on information
collection requests. OMB may amend or
waive the requirement for public
consultation to the extent that public
participation in the approval process
would defeat the purpose of the
information collection, violate State or
Federal law, or substantially interfere
with any agency’s ability to perform its
statutory obligations. The IC Clearance
Official, Regulatory Information
Management Services, Office of
Management, publishes that notice
containing proposed information
collection requests prior to submission
of these requests to OMB. Each
proposed information collection,
grouped by office, contains the
following: (1) Type of review requested,
e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or
AGENCY:
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\09OCN1.SGM
09OCN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 197 (Thursday, October 9, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59612-59613]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-24065]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
[Docket No. PTO-C-2008-0040]
Performance Review Board (PRB)
AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office.
ACTION: Notice
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In conformance with the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, 5
U.S.C. 4314(c)(4), the United States Patent and Trademark Office
announces the appointment of persons to serve as members of its
Performance Review Board.
ADDRESSES: Director, Human Capital Management, Office of Human
Resources, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450,
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Karlinchak at (571) 272-6200.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The membership of the United States Patent
and Trademark Office Performance Review Board is as follows:
Margaret J. A. Peterlin, Chair, Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce
for Intellectual Property and Deputy Director of the United States
Patent and Trademark Office.
Stephen S. Smith, Vice Chair, Chief Administrative Officer, United
States Patent and Trademark Office.
John J. Doll, Commissioner for Patents, United States Patent and
Trademark Office.
Lynne G. Beresford, Commissioner for Trademarks, United States
Patent and Trademark Office.
Wendy R. Garber, Acting Chief Information Officer, United States
Patent and Trademark Office.
James A. Toupin, General Counsel, United States Patent and
Trademark Office.
Lois E. Boland, Director, Office of Intellectual Property Policy
and Enforcement, United States Patent and Trademark Office.
Barry K. Hudson, Chief Financial Officer, United States Patent and
Trademark Office.
Jefferson D. Taylor, Director, Office of Governmental Affairs,
United States Patent and Trademark Office.
Deborah S. Cohn, Deputy Commissioner for Trademark
[[Page 59613]]
Operations, United States Patent and Trademark Office.
Margaret A. Focarino, Deputy Commissioner for Patent Operations,
United States Patent and Trademark Office.
Kenneth Berman, Director of Information Technology, International
Broadcasting Bureau.
Dated: October 1, 2008.
Jon W. Dudas,
Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of
the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
[FR Doc. E8-24065 Filed 10-8-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-16-P
