RE: Hijacked IP space.

["Larry J. Blunk" <ljb () merit edu>]

On Tue, 2003-11-04 at 10:51, Randy Bush wrote:
> > Those options are not mutually exclusive, and, while I agree that
> > it would be better if the RIR's accepted generic GPG keys along
> > the lines of what RADB does, the X.509 certificate is not a bad
> > first step.  At least it's better than Mail-From or Crypt-PW.
> > > > > Should we, as a community, register with RIR's with PGP.
> > > > Each of the RIRs has either already established, or is in the
> > > > process of establishing, a CA for that purpose.  Please use
> > > > them.
> > > thanks, but i choose to have my peers certify my identity, not the
> > > rirs
>
> the rirs already accept pgp certs.  and i use them, as do all
> security-conscious registrants.  i was disagreeing with woody's
> pushing x.509 certs to the exclusion of pgp certs.
>
> randy
> ---


   I would note that the RIPE NCC, while implementing X.509 support,
is moving away from the concept of running their own CA.  Their
X.509 support will be very "PGP-like".   See the following for details -
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-46/presentations/ripe46-db-x509.pdf