-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sat, 1 Jul 2000, J C Lawrence wrote:
I have watched and read this thread with interest. In the end the validity or personal preferences on the various standards is moot. Compared to what is needed and wanted by the NANOG membership it really just doesn't matter no matter how much you might think that PEM/SSL/PGP/whatever are evil/great/flawed/brilliant. You're looking to roll out a service and a basic point seems to have been lost: actually doing something. Wouldn't it be a bit more useful to get the thread onto the questions of:
-- What *functionally* would be most useful to the NANOG membership in terms of a networked key server? Do they want SSL keys, PGP keys, SSH keys, all of them, some of them, what? Ask!
Good point. And so the question is asked...
-- What resources would be required to implement that and are there systems already available that can be leverages to do this or is a new development effort required?
This depends on the first answer, of course.
-- Who will devote resources (machines, bandwidth, admin, development time etc)?
I have had numerous companies contact me about machines, bandwidth, and admin time for the PGP keyserver network, so that is promising. - --Len. __ L. Sassaman System Administrator | Technology Consultant | "Common sense is wrong." icq.. 10735603 | pgp.. finger://ns.quickie.net/rabbi | --Practical C Programming -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: OpenPGP Encrypted Email Preferred. iD8DBQE5X6IwPYrxsgmsCmoRApBJAKDjFPUeADMh7SJo8cFuGwHEEZiicwCfTMu8 +rtSHzqfMJM/CC7OMACs2kU= =81aT -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----