[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 ]