[cabfcert_policy] FW: [cabfpub] Ballot 188 - Clarify use of term "CA" in Baseline Requirements
Ben Wilson
ben.wilson at digicert.com
Thu Apr 27 07:33:34 MST 2017
Another one for discussion
From: Public [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Ryan Sleevi via
Public
Sent: Wednesday, March 1, 2017 1:22 AM
To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>
Cc: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 188 - Clarify use of term "CA" in Baseline
Requirements
On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 11:36 PM, Dimitris Zacharopoulos via Public
<public at cabforum.org <mailto:public at cabforum.org> > wrote:
Perhaps changing the "Root CA Certificate" as "A CA Certificate in which the
Public Key has been digitally signed by its corresponding Private Key with the
intention to be distributed by Application Software Suppliers as a trust
anchor". Would that work?
I think this would be a step in the wrong direction. As we know from the
discussions about the scope of the BRs, "intent" is something that is hard to
audit and hard to document. We should avoid such definitions, and focus on
clear technical definitions.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/policyreview/attachments/20170427/db682cb9/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: ATT00001.txt
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/policyreview/attachments/20170427/db682cb9/attachment.txt>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4974 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/policyreview/attachments/20170427/db682cb9/attachment.bin>
More information about the Policyreview
mailing list