This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[dns-wg] NTIA and RIPE
- Previous message (by thread): [dns-wg] NTIA and RIPE
- Next message (by thread): [dns-wg] NTIA and RIPE
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Patrik Fältström
paf at cisco.com
Thu Oct 30 07:34:08 CET 2008
On 30 okt 2008, at 10.28, Jakob Schlyter wrote: > I do however believe that changing the holder of the KSK will be > complicated, unless a proven automatic key rollover mechanism has > been developed, implemented _and_ deployed. so while I wouldn't hold > my breath waiting for this to happen, I hope that the initial KSK > holder will be stable and that it is possible to transfer the KSK in > case the holder needs to be changed. Fair... Now, we had this bullet: K - Changes to the entities and roles in the signing process must not require a change of keys. Then I thought about changing it to the following: K - Changes to the entities and roles in the signing process should minimize issues related to potential changes in keys when the entities changes. Now, I am a bit confused... :-) Jakob, Ed, others...do you have any suggestion on text? Patrik
- Previous message (by thread): [dns-wg] NTIA and RIPE
- Next message (by thread): [dns-wg] NTIA and RIPE
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ dns-wg Archives ]