just an FYI - don't panic

  > "Eric M. Carroll" <eric at enfm.utcc.utoronto.ca> writes:
  > Daniel,
  > 
  > For the moment, I think the need to have your code support PGP object
  > authentication, leaving key management explicitly out of band, is
  > large enough to warrent support.  We certainly do not mind having key
  > management as an out of band activity, at least initially. We do,
  > however, want something stronger than the current system.

  > I would like to be able to sign an entire database, as well. 
  > ...

Good idea.

  > While I recognize it does not scale and that we need something else, I
  > actually *like* the idea of OOB key management. The reason is that I
  > view the database as an repository of the transactions of a trusted
  > administrative relationship. OOB key management is just another
  > opportunity to find out who it is I am actually about to trust.  Maybe
  > the RA could set up a PGP key server as a value added service for
  > routing coordination?

It is not the key server but maintaining its content that worries me.
But you have come a long way to convince me.
Let's talk some more at NANOG.

Daniel



-------- Logged at  Thu May 18 17:36:51 MET DST 1995  ---------