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]/
[routing-wg] [cooperation-wg] Update on NIS 2: Proposed amendments by the Parliament alter scope on (root) DNS
- Previous message (by thread): [routing-wg] [cooperation-wg] Update on NIS 2: Proposed amendments by the Parliament alter scope on (root) DNS
- Next message (by thread): [routing-wg] Weekly Routing Table Report
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Nick Hilliard
nick at foobar.org
Fri May 7 22:15:20 CEST 2021
Marco Hogewoning wrote on 07/05/2021 15:30: > Personally I am not that worried about this particular amendment. > IMHO the way it is worded leaves it fairly open as to what > technologies to deploy, with RPKI being just flagged as an example. ok noted. > Important as well is that changing the recital like this, doesn't > alter the scope of the directive. In that sense it only stresses the > need for entities that fall within the scope to think about routing > security and take appropriate measures to prevent the risks in that > area. And I think we can all acknowledge that those risks do exist, > so would be hard to argue against. Yep, definitely no intention to argue against the principal. We all - community, legislators, etc - agree on the importance of routing security. The only concern I had was whether codifying specific ways of handling this was advisable, but if they're not being codified, that's fine. Nick
- Previous message (by thread): [routing-wg] [cooperation-wg] Update on NIS 2: Proposed amendments by the Parliament alter scope on (root) DNS
- Next message (by thread): [routing-wg] Weekly Routing Table Report
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]