oooops... T
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Question - Can DNSSEC be operated in a manner which meets Khaledmandates? Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 13:09:10 -0700 From: todd glassey <tglas...@earthlink.net> To: Dan Schutzer <dan.schut...@fstc.org> CC: d...@fsround.org On 7/21/2010 1:02 PM, Dan Schutzer wrote: > Todd > > Can you briefly explain the relationship of Red Light Camera's to > DNSSEC? > > Sure - the relationship is for "any unattended device intended to offer evidence of something to a court which could be used in a criminal prosecution". What that means is any and all DNSSEC records operated out of a Root or lower level system in the state of California who would operate under these rules will need to meet the "legal definitions of trustworthy" which are much different that those here I am betting. Todd > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > todd glassey > Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 3:56 PM > To: ietf@ietf.org > Subject: Question - Can DNSSEC be operated in a manner which meets > Khaledmandates? > > Folks - there is a Court Ruling from the 4th Appellate District which > is turning off Red Light Camera's everywhere and there is a question as > to whether that ruling would also effect how Secure DNS Services are run > and if so what would it do. > > The ruling is called California v Khaled and is getting significant > traction here in the State of California in all courts. > > Todd > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf >
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
