-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 27 Jun 2000, Randy Bush wrote:
Well, if this is truly the case, that is wonderful.
ymmv
I'd like to hear Randy's thoughts on a Keyserver WG, however.
the first question would be whether a protocol is being proposed for adoption or an operational best current practice being documented?
There have been several "next generation" protocols that have been proposed for keyserver syncronization. All of these assume that the current "best practice" will not scale due to the limited bandwidth and disk storage capacities of the volunteer keyserver hosts. If we can assume that sufficient bandwidth and drive space/server power is available to us (which it looks like you believe, Randy), then I think that we should simply go ahead and document the current practice and formalize it. __ L. Sassaman System Administrator | "Everything looks bad Technology Consultant | if you remember it." icq.. 10735603 | pgp.. finger://ns.quickie.net/rabbi | --Homer Simpson -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: OpenPGP Encrypted Email Preferred. iD8DBQE5WUAXPYrxsgmsCmoRAoJ7AJ9UzQDDogLXAj9z+GNIcVSMB1whFACg2/Ab lDRX9G/dcl5yLtX5M/G9HSE= =GfkA -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----