59612 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Notices 

26Under 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 

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/DNS/VeriSignDNSSEC 

Proposal.pdf. 

27See Tal Rabin, IBM T. J. Watson Research 

Center, ‘‘A Simplified Approach to Threshold and 

Proactive RSA’’ (1998)(Rabin), http:// 

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). 

28See 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’’). 

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 

http://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 

http://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 

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 

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) 

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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Notices 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 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

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 

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD. 

ACTION: Notice; correction. 

SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy 

originally published a document in the 

Federal Register on September 05, 2008, 

announcing a partially closed meeting 

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. 

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 

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.’’ 

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 

Submission for OMB Review; 

Comment Request 

AGENCY: Department of Education. 

SUMMARY: 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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES