-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
We're only a small LIR, and we already see the burden of having to many "standards" to chose from. As of know, RIPE was steering the course with a clean (sub-)set, and it was OK for us.
I am not really following you here. What is the problem for you with the option of either using PGP or X.509?
From what I understand, some RIPE things can already only be done using lir-portal. Is that correct ?
Yes....but for all I know, all that can be done with PGP and email to hostmaster@ripe.net or equivalent mail address as well.
So, for the foreseeable future, we have to train the staff using the right tool for the right matter, which is just additional workload.
Well, you will have to train them to use ANY tool. Be it email+PGP or LIR-portal+X.509...
Some of the LIRs want X.509, some PGP. Isn't it good that the NCC tried to cater for both needs? As Shawn pointed out, the proposal is not to remove the PGP option.
I've seen too many such "Oh, we cover both" schemes in the past to know where it's heading, shortterm gain, longterm pain 8-}
I would be really interested in examples here... I will admit that I have concerns about the X.509 stuff, like the authorization chain to the mirrors (that I did a poor job of explaining in Amsterdam). but I am not sure there is that much issue with using both systems. - - kurtis - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBQD4H7KarNKXTPFCVEQLKCgCeMWrmQaopyJacVnFQEsTdjthz/aAAmgK6 JUAuPU+SBgD6e2ggsJMFMSv4 =Uzze -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----