[29551] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: PGP kerserver infrastructure
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Roeland Meyer (E-mail))
Tue Jun 27 19:58:17 2000
Reply-To: <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
From: "Roeland Meyer (E-mail)" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
To: "'L. Sassaman'" <rabbi@quickie.net>
Cc: "'Shawn McMahon'" <smcmahon@eiv.com>, <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 15:11:38 -0700
Message-ID: <000701bfe084$aaefa440$eaaf6cc7@PEREGRIN>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.QNWS_2.0006271347270.14588-100000@thetis.deor.org>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> L. Sassaman: Tuesday, June 27, 2000 1:52 PM
> On Tue, 27 Jun 2000, Roeland Meyer (E-mail) wrote:
> > But, as a previous poster already brought to surface, the
users
> > must have an interest in this service or NONE of the ISPs
will be
> > interested in deployment. The reason that existing PKI sucks
is
> > mainly a lack of serious user interest. There are NO
> > production-level PKI servers out there today. None of them
will
> > commit to an SLA and there are too few customers that will
pay
> > the required bucks to support a decent SLA, for a PKI
> > infrastructure. Build it and they will NOT come, yet.
> I see it is not the software quality (Highware and Marc
> Horowitz's folks
> have also done an excellent job on their servers) but in the
> hardware and
> network resources allocated to the public keyserver network.
I think that was my point. Resources get determined by whatever
it takes to meet a reasonable SLA.
