[ncc-services-wg] Improved Secure Communication for Registration Services (RS) Mailboxes

> I am kind of puzzled here.
> 
> The X.509 scheme was proposed there way before two RIPE
> meetings ago, when the NCC Services WG was new. I was also then
> voicing criticism, as was a few others. Not much discussion was
> raised though. Shawn then made a good presentation at the NCC
> Services WG meeting two RIPE meetings ago. We also had
> Dirk-Wilhelm van Gulik come in and explain X.509 and
> certificates in general. After the presentation, from what I
> remember most people thought this was a good idea, and a good
> add-on.  So the NCC proceeded.
> 
> So, I am bit surprised that people are start having views -now-.

Some of us were not at the RIPE meeting two RIPE meetings ago, so if
this was the only venue where the "design discussion" was held and
where justification for the intended choices were presented, it's
perhaps no surprise that some of us react when a baked proposal
arrives with no further background information.

BTW, I'm not certain if this is really something to make a big fuzz
about...

Regards,

- Håvard
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 248 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/ncc-services-wg/attachments/20040225/257deb7b/attachment.sig>