-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi David,
On 14/11/17 17:56 , David Conrad wrote: > Romeo, > > On Nov 17, 2014, at 7:49 AM, Romeo Zwart <romeo.zw...@ripe.net> > wrote: >> 2/ The RIPE NCC has been publishing this key material out of band >> for historical reasons. If there is a consensus in the WG that >> this is no longer needed, or even undesirable, we are happy to >> phase out the use of the DLV. > > Yay! > >> 3/ RIPE NCC has been assigned ripe.int in the early 2000's. We >> are currently not using ripe.int, other than by redirecting to >> ripe.net. If the community advises the RIPE NCC to request IANA >> to sign .int, we can spend some effort on this, but we'd like to >> follow up on this separately. > > Since .INT is currently not signed and RIPE is not using RIPE.INT, > signing RIPE.INT would seem to be a bit ... silly (particularly in > the light of #2). There was an explicit suggestion on the list about using ripe.int as a 'lever' to get .int signed, hence my comment. > Since RIPE is not using RIPE.INT and that registration is out of > (current) policy with respect to registrants in that domain, is > there any reason why RIPE-NCC doesn't simply request RIPE.INT to be > removed from the INT zone? There will be a separate followup on this specific topic. Kind regards, Romeo > Regards, -drc > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iEYEARECAAYFAlRrAaoACgkQGRL9suBV+erySgCeNcN71fH2JxJyflo+e+9o1Aj8 MHMAnRD5ieR/XPXe1NqHW2A2+/rpowYx =usf1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
