[cabfpub] Ballot 89 Again (Publish Recommendations for the Processing of EV SSL Certificates v.2)

Sigbjørn Vik sigbjorn at opera.com
Wed Dec 4 15:05:43 UTC 2013

On 02-Dec-13 20:26, Rick Andrews wrote:
> OK, I incorporated Ben's Conclusion paragraph, with "relying parties" changed to "some relying parties", and submit it once again for your review. I've also updated the documents on the wiki.

Seems good :)

Still has the same issue of stating "These agreements should [..] offer
equivalent protections [which may be null] to all", which still doesn't
make any sense to me. Not a showstopper though.

Absolute nitpick, please ignore :) Sometimes using double spacing
between sentences, sometimes single spacing.

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Sigbjørn Vik [mailto:sigbjorn at opera.com]
>> Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 1:49 AM
>> To: ben at digicert.com; Rick Andrews; public at cabforum.org
>> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 89 Again (Publish Recommendations for the
>> Processing of EV SSL Certificates v.2)
>> On 22-Nov-13 22:44, Ben Wilson wrote:
>>> Historically, relying parties have been required to assess
>>> the suitability of a CSP's policies and practices for the intended
>> usage
>> By the definition of "relying parties", end users are "relying
>> parties".
>> Categorically stating that end users have been required to assess legal
>> CA documents is plain wrong. Adding e.g. "some" in front of "relying
>> parties" would fix it. However, this is only an incorrect historical
>> reference, with no implication for the spec, so not a big deal.
>>> I don't care about adding the parenthetical cross-reference to X.509-
>> -
>>> which is more to answer Sigbjørn's earlier question about what was
>> meant
>>> by the sentence-- but I think the other edits make the paragraph a
>> lot
>>> more clear.
>> Agreed, the cross reference might be a bit much, but other edits look
>> good.
>> --
>> Sigbjørn Vik
>> Opera Software

Sigbjørn Vik
Opera Software

More information about the Public mailing list