North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

RE: PGP kerserver infrastructure

  • From: L. Sassaman
  • Date: Tue Jun 27 22:03:30 2000 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tue, 27 Jun 2000, Randy Bush wrote:

> > 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.
> 
> see rfc 2223

I have a copy printed. I was under the impression, however, that it was
generally considered proper to have a working group's influence on an RFC
during the writing process.

Would it be proper for someone (such as myself) to simply write an RFC
documenting the best current practice? Should this come prior to the
formation of a working group (if one indeed occurs?)

Pardon my ignorance... writing RFCs is not part of my experience.


- --Len.

__

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.

iD8DBQE5WUZoPYrxsgmsCmoRAgWNAJ9RU3oP2Bz8ogJIsxO7QmcG65H+hgCgrS0e
MgCiaYkAnSvMwMgiE1OozVc=
=EXl5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----