nanog mailing list archives
Re: RPKI Pilot Participant Notice
From: Randy Bush <randy () psg com>
Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2012 15:31:10 +0900
If a relying party's use of PKI infrastructure legally equated to acceptance of the relying party agreement (RPA), then having an explicit record of acceptance of the RPA would not be necessary. Alas, it does not appear possible to equate use of PKI certificates with agreement to the associated RPA (and some might argue that this is a feature, as some folks would not want to be legally bound to an agreement which they did not explicitly review and accept.)
do you have a r&d group devoted to how much you can delay, damage, warp, half-assed implement, ... rpki? look around you at the real world, the other rirs (especiall ripe/ncc), etc. the only part of it where arin seems to be doing a serious job is bs generation. thanks. randy
Current thread:
- Fwd: RPKI Pilot Participant Notice Randy Bush (Sep 05)
- Re: RPKI Pilot Participant Notice Mark Kosters (Sep 05)
- Re: RPKI Pilot Participant Notice Richard Barnes (Sep 05)
- Re: RPKI Pilot Participant Notice Christopher Morrow (Sep 05)
- Re: RPKI Pilot Participant Notice Gary Buhrmaster (Sep 05)
- Re: RPKI Pilot Participant Notice Danny McPherson (Sep 05)
- Re: RPKI Pilot Participant Notice Randy Bush (Sep 06)
- Re: RPKI Pilot Participant Notice Richard Barnes (Sep 05)
- Re: RPKI Pilot Participant Notice John Curran (Sep 06)
- Re: RPKI Pilot Participant Notice William Herrin (Sep 06)
- Re: RPKI Pilot Participant Notice Randy Bush (Sep 06)
- Re: RPKI Pilot Participant Notice John Curran (Sep 06)
- Re: RPKI Pilot Participant Notice Randy Bush (Sep 06)
- Re: RPKI Pilot Participant Notice John Curran (Sep 07)
- Re: RPKI Pilot Participant Notice Mark Kosters (Sep 05)