Lets see if I can reply to everyone in one post. =)
On 11/07/11 11:19 AM, Dave Mill wrote:
Steps are taken to ensure that trusted people:
-Do not have an addiction to a proven dangerous substance
-Are generally in a state that allows them to perform their duties
-Are not an easy target for black-mail or bribery due to life-style
choices or past history
Yep I think that encapsulates what I was trying to say.
I'm happy to include something like the above points.
On 11/07/11 12:06 PM, Mark Foster wrote:
Surely there's a Government Department or NGO who
can suggest some suitable
wording for this, we all understand the intent, but shooting one's self in
the foot is not necessarily productive....?
Exactly. Everyone knows what the
intent is here but I don't believe the
document can let it 'go without saying'.
Happy to see alternate wording.
On 11/07/11 12:16 PM, Tristram Cheer wrote:
Valid points, Surely DNSSEC is critical infrastructure
and some of the
security aspects should be handed off to one of the NZ men-in-black
I think NZRS is the appropriate place for DNSSEC. I believe that it
critical infrastructure however.
There seemed to be a reluctance to go down the path of requiring
something like a national security clearance for trusted individuals
based on earlier posts.
Was that what you were suggesting, or did I miss the mark here?