[29556] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: PGP kerserver infrastructure
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (L. Sassaman)
Tue Jun 27 21:30:38 2000
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 17:00:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: "L. Sassaman" <rabbi@quickie.net>
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <E1374sY-000Nrr-00@rip.psg.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.QNWS_2.0006271657570.16532-100000@thetis.deor.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
-----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-----
