[cabfcert_policy] CA vs. CAO

[Moudrick M. Dadashov]

no doubt, Peter, with all my patriotic feelings, I can't disagree with you.

eIDAS has got a lot of home work before we could promote it this way :)

Thanks,
M.D.

On 11/23/2016 5:30 PM, Peter Bowen wrote:
> Moudrick,
>
> I am aware that CSP was from the old 1999 directive and TSP is from 
> eIDAS, but I think we should avoid both so there is no confusion.
>
> Thanks,
> Peter
>
>> On Nov 23, 2016, at 4:04 AM, Moudrick M. Dadashov <md at ssc.lt 
>> <mailto:md at ssc.lt>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> actually the term "Certification service provider" is no longer used 
>> and replaced by far more generic “Trust Service Provider”.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> M.D.
>>
>> On 11/22/2016 9:13 PM, Peter Bowen wrote:
>>> +1
>>>
>>> It looks like “Certification Service Provider” and “Trust Service 
>>> Provider” have specific meanings in EU directives and regulations, 
>>> so I think we should avoid these terms
>>>
>>>> On Nov 22, 2016, at 7:20 AM, Tim Hollebeek 
>>>> <THollebeek at trustwave.com <mailto:THollebeek at trustwave.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I agree with this, though I would oppose TSP on the grounds that it 
>>>> introduces a potential for confusion between a European term that 
>>>> has a very specific meaning, and the more generic definition of a CA.
>>>> -Tim
>>>> *From:*Policyreview [mailto:policyreview-bounces at cabforum.org]*On 
>>>> Behalf Of*Dimitris Zacharopoulos
>>>> *Sent:*Monday, November 21, 2016 4:11 PM
>>>> *To:*Ben Wilson;policyreview at cabforum.org 
>>>> <mailto:policyreview at cabforum.org>
>>>> *Subject:*Re: [cabfcert_policy] CA vs. CAO
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> First of all, sorry I missed the last call. This topic was 
>>>> discussed in previous F2F meetings and on several occasions. I 
>>>> believe that nobody wants to go over changing every document that 
>>>> has the term "CA" and change it to "CAO". If we are to do such a 
>>>> big change, I would vote to use the term "Trust Service Provider - 
>>>> TSP" in order to align with the European model.
>>>>
>>>> The majority of the CAs and auditors have linked the term "CA" with 
>>>> an "organization". That's why it was agreed (on past meetings) that 
>>>> we will not try to change the meaning of the term "CA" to mean 
>>>> anything else but that of an organization. Instead, we would try to 
>>>> use this term consistently (to refer to an organization) and 
>>>> introduce changes to the other instances to mean something else. 
>>>> That would introduce fewer changes in the BRs and EV guidelines.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dimitris.
>>>>
>>>> On 21/11/2016 10:47 μμ, Ben Wilson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>     On our most recent call, Peter Bowen and I again discussed use
>>>>     of “CA” vs. something else.  (Back on May 5^th I sent out a
>>>>     proposed “straw poll” to this group, but I don’t think I ever
>>>>     sent it to the public list.)  Peter and I like the term “CA
>>>>     Operator” or abbreviated, “CAO”.  The only downside, which is a
>>>>     big one – I’ll admit, is that  the term “CA” seems to  be used
>>>>     pervasively within the Forum and elsewhere to refer to  the
>>>>     entity that operates a CA.
>>>>     Following our last call, I started to do a replacement of CA
>>>>     with CAO to see how it would look/work, but I stopped because
>>>>     there would be many instances to replace and I wanted to get
>>>>     more of a consensus from  this group and potentially the public
>>>>     list.
>>>>     Thoughts?
>>>>     Ben
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>     Policyreview mailing list
>>>>
>>>>     Policyreview at cabforum.org <mailto:Policyreview at cabforum.org>
>>>>
>>>>     https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/policyreview
>>>>     <https://scanmail.trustwave.com/?c=4062&d=--Kz2PTP0JUleZRp1v2t7Xfr51q89GxOigDNXuQc8g&s=5&u=https%3a%2f%2fcabforum%2eorg%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2fpolicyreview>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> This transmission may contain information that is privileged, 
>>>> confidential, and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. 
>>>> If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that 
>>>> any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the information 
>>>> contained herein (including any reliance thereon) is strictly 
>>>> prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please 
>>>> immediately contact the sender and destroy the material in its 
>>>> entirety, whether in electronic or hard copy format.
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Policyreview mailing list
>>>> Policyreview at cabforum.org <mailto:Policyreview at cabforum.org>
>>>> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/policyreview
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Policyreview mailing list
>>> Policyreview at cabforum.org
>>> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/policyreview
>>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/policyreview/attachments/20161123/6c06c5c1/attachment-0001.html>