[cabfpub] More changes to proposed policy update

[Phillip]

I will throw an ID in to IETF that just states that this is allowed.

The PKIX mafia will refuse to put it on the WG work item list but they don't get to make the decision here. I can't see why five people should get to block a proposal for no other reason than that they are not interested in the requirement.



At this point I think this will bring me up to four separate proposed addenda to PKIX, add in Yngve's draft on TLS and we have five. I don't think we would want them to become five separate specifications so what I propose to do is to consolidate them as they are referenced by CABForum docs.


On May 23, 2012, at 10:37 AM, Adam Langley wrote:

> On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 5:19 AM, Rob Stradling <rob.stradling at comodo.com> wrote:
>> allow non-critical Name Constraints, but several folks suggested that it
>> would be reasonable for the Baseline Requirements to be modified to
>> allow non-critical Name Constraints.
> 
> I would heartily endorse / second this.
> 
> 
> Cheers
> 
> AGL
> _______________________________________________
> Public mailing list
> Public at cabforum.org
> http://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public