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 dept's? I think NZRS is the appropriate place for DNSSEC. I believe that it is 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? Regards, Dean