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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On 2004-02-25, at 13.34, Kurt Jaeger wrote:

> Hi!
>
>>>>> X.509 is not the way to go. [...]
>
>>> 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
>
>> I am kind of puzzled here.
> [...]
>> So, I am bit surprised that people are start having views -now-.
>
> Sorry for this. It's just that there are so many discussions
> to have in parallel that it's difficult to follow up in time
> to some of them. I already raised my voice the last time
> x.509 came up, that's why I raised it again.
>
> We're only a small LIR, and we already see the burden of
> having to many "standards" to chose from. As of know, RIPE
> was steering the course with a clean (sub-)set, and it
> was OK for us.

I am not really following you here. What is the problem for you with 
the option of either using PGP or X.509? Some of the LIRs want X.509, 
some PGP. Isn't it good that the NCC tried to cater for both needs? As 
Shawn pointed out, the proposal is not to remove the PGP option.

> We do not have the time to attend RIPE meetings more than
> once every few years, if at all.

this is why we have this WG and why this WG have a mailinglist. That is 
why this WG publishes minutes of the meetings that take place in 
person.

I understand that a big issue with the RIRs (not only RIPE NCC) is that 
a minority of the members decide the policy for the majority. Problem 
is that I don't see a way around this. The "we all have day jobs" 
argument doesn't really apply. Life must still go on as well.

Best regards,

- - kurtis -

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.3

iQA/AwUBQD2WNqarNKXTPFCVEQJfvQCfZ1nRQVhU6yhaGbcb3HCsOqOXfUsAoObu
eGFtj6u+8aH0dnY0SsZukoiq
=paO/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----