[cabfcert_policy] FW: [cabfpub] Ballot 188 - Clarify use of term "CA" in Baseline Requirements

[Ben Wilson]

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>