-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 - -- Danny McPherson <danny@tcb.net> wrote:
OK, so we were talking past one another. I agree with everything you said above, and simply meant to highlight the fact that RPKI validation will change things (quite necessarily, IMO), and folks need to be paying attention to this.
Okay, I admit I haven't paid the closest attention to RPKI, but I have to ask: Is this a two-way shared-key issue, or (worse) a case where we need to rely on a central entity to be a key clearinghouse? The reason why I mention this is obvious -- the entire PKI effort has been stalled (w.r.t. authority) because of this particular issue. Any thoughts on that? - - ferg -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Desktop 9.6.3 (Build 3017) wj8DBQFIpRYsq1pz9mNUZTMRArLnAKC5C6uLw3khwDreYlWw3m3vEmYJAACg81By z3hYv0xseQegh/2yzYbeARw= =/xK7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(at)netzero.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/