cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

1995-08-11 - Re: IPSEC goes to RFC

Header Data

From: “Perry E. Metzger” <perry@panix.com>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 91761291d433c1296531cd5d7cd580e8bdea8cf2bdb74b9165ed0d8d6092a898
Message ID: <199508110349.XAA08572@panix4.panix.com>
Reply To: <m0sgj9W-000wP1C@myriad>
UTC Datetime: 1995-08-11 03:49:29 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 10 Aug 95 20:49:29 PDT

Raw message

From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@panix.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 95 20:49:29 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: IPSEC goes to RFC
In-Reply-To: <m0sgj9W-000wP1C@myriad>
Message-ID: <199508110349.XAA08572@panix4.panix.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Matthew Ghio writes:
> sdw@lig.net (Stephen D. Williams) wrote:
> 
> > I really like the idea of using DNS for (public I assume) keys...
> 
> I don't.
> 
> Public keys in the DNS is a bad idea because it makes it difficult to
> update the database, especially in large organizations.

Thats one of a number of reasons why the DNS dynamic update facility
has been created.

> The host should be able to give
> its own key in response to a query.

What makes you assume we are using hosts as the keyed endpoints in the
usual case? Users are also getting keys, and querying them will be
difficult until humans all come equipped with implanted radio
transmitters. See "The Presidents Analyst" for a possible solution to
that problem, but I prefer DNS :-)

Perry

Thread