On Sun, 2010-08-22 at 11:22 -0400, Jeff Johnson wrote: > On Aug 22, 2010, at 11:13 AM, C.J. Adams-Collier KF7BMP wrote: > > Please accept my sincere apology. I did not mean to offend. I have never > > received a refusal to sign a message indicating ownership of a private key > > and it raised a red flag. Since there has been no indication from the list > > that this was an appropriate step to take, I will avoid publishing such > > issues and attempt instead to resolve them privately. > > Well as one who was also surprised at your peering policy (although > I understood perfectly once you explained), you might try > to describe the SKS server peering policy you are obliged to > work with up front (and in a accessible web page) just to expedite > the explanations.
Thank you for the recommendation. I have begun such a policy here. Revision history is being kept in git, and I'd be happy to publish it if there is interest. http://pki.colliertech.org:11371/ Accessible will come shortly. Speaking of which, a11y.com should be coming back up in a moment. > There's nothing whatsoever wrong with your SKS peering policy imho, just > it surprised ( at least me) a bit, necessitating an explanation involving > some subtle interpretations of what "trust" means. Thank you. > If you add a policy description of YOUR "trust" needs for SKS peering, its > obvious > (to me anyways) why you wish a signed message. Great. I will try to explain this in the document. > hth just trying for a positive suggestion > > 73 de Jeff 73, C.J.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Sks-devel mailing list Sks-devel@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/sks-devel
