[db-wg] Proposal: Abuse-C as a Reference

On Thu, 2004-05-06 at 17:12, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote:
> >Why do you not just use IRT?
> >
> >The prime reason, with which I agree, is that there is this 'mandatory'
> >encryption field. Two things:
> 
>   I have already polled the CERT community regarding the 'mandatory' for
>   the key-cert attributes. As of today, I haven't heard anything which
>   would prevent us from making those 'optional'.
> 
>   The NCC has confirmed that the modification would be straight-forward
>   (and cheap :-).
> 
>   So this is solved, I think.

That is very good to hear as that is I think the main issue that some
people where talking about.

Can someone sum up the issues that are left with IRT's?

Greets,
 Jeroen

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 240 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/attachments/20040506/6309835b/attachment.sig>