Re: DNS? was Re: Key Management, anyone?
Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> Mon, 05 August 1996 02:00 UTC
Received: from relay.hq.tis.com by neptune.TIS.COM id aa28751; 4 Aug 96 22:00 EDT
Received: by relay.hq.tis.com; id CAA05001; Fri, 2 Aug 1996 02:37:06 -0400
Received: from sol.hq.tis.com(192.33.112.100) by relay.tis.com via smap (V3.1.1) id xma004986; Fri, 2 Aug 96 02:36:38 -0400
Received: from relay.hq.tis.com by tis.com (4.1/SUN-5.64) id AA02817; Fri, 2 Aug 96 02:36:10 EDT
Received: by relay.hq.tis.com; id CAA04982; Fri, 2 Aug 1996 02:36:36 -0400
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp(131.112.32.132) by relay.tis.com via smap (V3.1.1) id xma004973; Fri, 2 Aug 96 02:36:25 -0400
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Message-Id: <199608020638.PAA12221@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Received: by necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (8.6.11/TM2.1) id PAA12221; Fri, 2 Aug 1996 15:38:16 +0900
Subject: Re: DNS? was Re: Key Management, anyone?
To: Hilarie Orman <ho@earth.hpc.org>
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 1996 15:38:15 -0000
Cc: PALAMBER@us.oracle.com, ipsec@TIS.COM
In-Reply-To: <199608010915.FAA21838@earth.hpc.org>; from "Hilarie Orman" at Aug 1, 96 5:15 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Sender: ipsec-approval@neptune.tis.com
Precedence: bulk
> I agree with the individual points, but I'm not convinced by the conclusion. > Why isn't DNSSEC the appropriate minimal common basis for authentication? Authentication for what? > I believe we need such a basis, Why? I think we don't need DNS-structured authentication chain as a basis. Masataka Ohta
- DNS? was Re: Key Management, anyone? PALAMBER.US.ORACLE.COM
- Re: DNS? was Re: Key Management, anyone? Hilarie Orman
- Re: DNS? was Re: Key Management, anyone? Masataka Ohta
- Re: DNS? was Re: Key Management, anyone? PALAMBER.US.ORACLE.COM