<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 11/05/2014 05:50 PM, Gervase Markham
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:545A475B.8040402@mozilla.org" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Well, it looks like opinions differ on this, then :-) I remember the CAs
arguing that browsers should do new UI for OV, but various other CAs
proving quite how much some existing OV issuance processes sucked, and
so we decided not to do that. So EV was started to provide an auditable
standard everyone could agree on.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Even though I was involved only on the sidelines at that time, I
tend to agree with Jeremy that EV was understood to be an EXTENDED
validation. Something that is truly very deep with strong
requirements. At least that what I hope it is.<br>
<br>
One fact the browser vendors have to acknowledge is that there is a
fairly small percentage having EV certificates, but for sites which
are also fairly important (mostly). <br>
<br>
General OV and IV as defined today in the BR is - despite the lack
of any UI benefits - still very strong and popular. And perhaps you
should think about it why it's so persistent both with the CAs and
the subscribers ordering it.<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td colspan="2">Regards </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2"> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Signer: </td>
<td>Eddy Nigg, COO/CTO</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> </td>
<td><a href="http://www.startcom.org">StartCom Ltd.</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>XMPP: </td>
<td><a href="xmpp:startcom@startcom.org">startcom@startcom.org</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Blog: </td>
<td><a href="http://blog.startcom.org">Join the Revolution!</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Twitter: </td>
<td><a href="http://twitter.com/eddy_nigg">Follow Me</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2"> </td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</body>
</html>