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/ncc-services-wg@ripe.net/
[ncc-services-wg] Improved Secure Communication for Registration Services (RS) Mailboxes
- Previous message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] Improved Secure Communication for Registration Services (RS) Mailboxes
- Next message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] Improved Secure Communication for Registration Services (RS) Mailboxes
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Randy Bush
randy at psg.com
Wed Feb 25 10:01:00 CET 2004
>> X.509 is not the way to go. It's just a (needless) duplication of effort. >> And wading forever in the mess of "do we use this protocol/format or that" >> and so on. > > I would have to concur with this objection. PGP/GPG works, it is well > suited to workflow, requires few special tools (bar pgp software) on the > client side, and is an established method. > > Forcing certificate handling onto the LIR community is NOT good service, it > is IMNSHO overcomplication. PKIen have their uses, but this is not one. > > I say NO to X.509. i would ammend slightly. the rirs provide us service. some of us find pgp easier to deploy and use. some will provide x.509 easier. so the rirs accepting *both* would be good. randy, a pgp kinda guy who also uses x.509 occasionally
- Previous message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] Improved Secure Communication for Registration Services (RS) Mailboxes
- Next message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] Improved Secure Communication for Registration Services (RS) Mailboxes
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]