From muriel at actimage.net Wed Mar 10 10:12:06 2004 From: muriel at actimage.net (Muriel Souville) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 10:12:06 +0100 Subject: [techsec-wg] Launch of the Security Plugtests Registration Message-ID: <039901c4067f$c32c2540$4406a8c0@leila> Dear all, The ETSI Plugtests(tm) Service is pleased to announce the opening of the Security Plugtests registration. The event will take place from 24 till 28 May at the ETSI premises, in Sophia Antipolis (France). Deadline to register is 5th May. All details about the event are to be found at http://www.etsi.org/plugtests/security.htm Feel free to forward this email to as many people as you want in order to have a really interesting test opportunity this week. For any enquiry you may have, please write to plugtests at etsi.org. Thanks for your attention. We look forward to welcoming you at our Headquarters in May. Best regards Muriel SOUVILLE ETSI Consultant Tel: +33 (0) 3 90 23 63 63 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ted at tednet.nl Thu Mar 25 13:29:32 2004 From: ted at tednet.nl (Ted Lindgreen) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 13:29:32 +0100 Subject: [techsec-wg] TechSec meeting, RIPE 48 In-Reply-To: "Ted Lindgreen's message as of Jan 12, 10:59" Message-ID: <200403251229.i2PCTWGV029529@omval.tednet.nl> Dear Working Group people, In five weeks we have RIPE 48. The TechSec meeting at RIPE 47 was cancelled due to lack of interest. There is a slot for the TechSec WG at RIPE 48, but I'm wondering whether there is enough interest now to not have to it cancel it again. So, please, anyone with an agenda points, a contribution or anything else to discuss of present: speak up NOW! Regards, -- ted From bmanning at karoshi.com Thu Mar 25 13:32:51 2004 From: bmanning at karoshi.com (bill) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 04:32:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: [techsec-wg] TechSec meeting, RIPE 48 In-Reply-To: <200403251229.i2PCTWGV029529@omval.tednet.nl> from "Ted Lindgreen" at Mar 25, 2004 01:29:32 PM Message-ID: <200403251232.i2PCWpK12131@karoshi.com> > Dear Working Group people, > > In five weeks we have RIPE 48. Yea... :) > So, please, anyone with an agenda points, a contribution > or anything else to discuss of present: speak up NOW! I'd like to have a brief, open-ended discussion on DNSSEC validation. I'd be happy to put some talking points together, but have no definitive answers. Only questions. :) > Regards, > -- ted --bill From ted at tednet.nl Thu Mar 25 13:43:49 2004 From: ted at tednet.nl (Ted Lindgreen) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 13:43:49 +0100 Subject: [techsec-wg] TechSec meeting, RIPE 48 In-Reply-To: "bill's message as of Mar 25, 13:33" Message-ID: <200403251243.i2PChnpA029629@omval.tednet.nl> [Quoting bill, on Mar 25, 13:33, in "Re: [techsec-wg] Tec ..."] > > So, please, anyone with an agenda points, a contribution > > or anything else to discuss of present: speak up NOW! > > I'd like to have a brief, open-ended discussion > on DNSSEC validation. I'd be happy to put some > talking points together, but have no definitive > answers. Only questions. :) Such a discussion seems very worthwhile, and NLnet Labs can certainly contribute also, but... for what reason do you want to do this in the TechSec working-group, instead of in the DNS working-group? -- yed From bmanning at karoshi.com Thu Mar 25 13:53:43 2004 From: bmanning at karoshi.com (bill) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 04:53:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: [techsec-wg] TechSec meeting, RIPE 48 In-Reply-To: <200403251243.i2PChnpA029629@omval.tednet.nl> from "Ted Lindgreen" at Mar 25, 2004 01:43:49 PM Message-ID: <200403251253.i2PCrh312332@karoshi.com> > > [Quoting bill, on Mar 25, 13:33, in "Re: [techsec-wg] Tec ..."] > > > > So, please, anyone with an agenda points, a contribution > > > or anything else to discuss of present: speak up NOW! > > > > I'd like to have a brief, open-ended discussion > > on DNSSEC validation. I'd be happy to put some > > talking points together, but have no definitive > > answers. Only questions. :) > > Such a discussion seems very worthwhile, and NLnet Labs can > certainly contribute also, but... for what reason do you want > to do this in the TechSec working-group, instead of in the DNS > working-group? Well... Some of this has to do w/ my view that the validator function is independent of the resolver and that the application/validator interaction is not well understood from either the app.developer or the validator spec writer. So its not really a DNS issue, to my mind. :) > > -- yed > From ted at tednet.nl Thu Mar 25 13:56:43 2004 From: ted at tednet.nl (Ted Lindgreen) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 13:56:43 +0100 Subject: [techsec-wg] TechSec meeting, RIPE 48 In-Reply-To: "bill's message as of Mar 25, 13:53" Message-ID: <200403251256.i2PCuhVB029696@omval.tednet.nl> [Quoting bill, on Mar 25, 13:53, in "Re: [techsec-wg] Tec ..."] > Well... Some of this has to do w/ my view that the > validator function is independent of the resolver > and that the application/validator interaction is > not well understood from either the app.developer > or the validator spec writer. > > So its not really a DNS issue, to my mind. :) OK, when more subjects popup for the TechSec meeting, let's do it. -- ted