-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi,
Thanks for your comments and suggestions, and I'll go and make my (software-vendor-specific-)pick from them. Best regards, Wouter On 09/17/2010 05:31 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > No, I am sure we don't want to create a forced cross-dependency on > https. But that is far from the only choice. I am only interested in > the first case. I could care less about alternate DNSSEC roots, and > the people I know who care about distribution of lower-in-the-tree > trust anchors have enough control of the affected systems to deal > with missed rollovers. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkyYeNYACgkQkDLqNwOhpPj/vwCfXlXMhhC8YhKc0aSgBCO+qGFf za0AoIWKgxtWO6knZFA5f/ViT+/1ojTJ =w+Fz -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
