-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 - -- Danny McPherson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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/
