[db-wg] Proposal: Abuse-C as a Reference
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] Proposal: Abuse-C as a Reference
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] Proposal: Abuse-C as a Reference
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jeroen Massar
jeroen at unfix.org
Thu May 6 17:18:49 CEST 2004
On Thu, 2004-05-06 at 17:12, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: > >Why do you not just use IRT? > > > >The prime reason, with which I agree, is that there is this 'mandatory' > >encryption field. Two things: > > I have already polled the CERT community regarding the 'mandatory' for > the key-cert attributes. As of today, I haven't heard anything which > would prevent us from making those 'optional'. > > The NCC has confirmed that the modification would be straight-forward > (and cheap :-). > > So this is solved, I think. That is very good to hear as that is I think the main issue that some people where talking about. Can someone sum up the issues that are left with IRT's? Greets, Jeroen -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 240 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/attachments/20040506/6309835b/attachment.sig>
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] Proposal: Abuse-C as a Reference
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] Proposal: Abuse-C as a Reference
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]