[cabfpub] Revised document for Ballot 89 - Adopt Guidelines for the Processing of EV SSL Certificates v.2

Rick Andrews Rick_Andrews at symantec.com
Mon Oct 15 11:05:08 MST 2012


Gerv,

I've changed the title of the document, the motion on the wiki, and the subject line of this email.

Can you point me to the ongoing Mozilla discussion about DANE? I didn't find much direct discussion on dev.security.policy.

-Rick

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gervase Markham [mailto:gerv at mozilla.org]
> Sent: Monday, October 15, 2012 2:37 AM
> To: Rick Andrews
> Cc: public at cabforum.org
> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Revised document for Ballot 89 - Adopt
> Requirements for the Processing of EV SSL Certificates v.2
> 
> On 12/10/12 01:31, Rick Andrews wrote:
> > I’ve updated the document again to include feedback from Kathleen. I
> > changed the title back to Guidelines as opposed to Requirements, and
> > changed a lot of musts to shoulds.
> > Please look it over again, especially browser members. If we have
> > consensus on this version, I’ll advance it towards a ballot. Thanks,
> 
> Hi Rick,
> 
> Thank you for your changes, and for taking our reservations into
> account.
> 
> We note the point Ryan raised about DANE; we would not want to limit
> our
> freedom to decide how to present connections secured using a
> certificate
> from DANE to the user. (This is still very much an ongoing discussion;
> we don't even have a patch for DANE yet. We will certainly listen to
> the
> CA point of view as we do our comparative analysis of the risk profiles
> of different mechanisms.) So "rolling back the language", as you
> suggest, seems like a good thing.
> 
> We have one remaining bit of feedback: can we make sure the ballot is
> named to match the new title of the document, e.g. "Adopt Guidelines
> for
> the Processing of Extended Validation SSL Certificates v.2.0"?
> 
> Other than that, we are happy to support it. :-)
> 
> Gerv



More information about the Public mailing list