[cabfpub] Ballot 100: Extend Deadline - OCSP Good Response
steve.roylance at globalsign.com
Tue May 28 06:31:43 MST 2013
I suggest we reach out to the CA platform providers and work with them (as
I suggested a year ago) so that we don't get to this position again.
I would like to use part of the CABForum website to list compliant s/w
(open source too) so there's some carrot for working with providers.
I've already approached Ascertia and they should be fine to be compliant.
I'm sure prime key and others would help whip EJBCA into shape.
Note that when I say compliant, I mean on all points and not just this one
such that we can be confident we are truly raising the bar everywhere.
Does that work for you?
On 28/05/2013 14:17, "Gervase Markham" <gerv at mozilla.org> wrote:
>On 24/05/13 15:59, Joseph.R.Kaluzny at wellsfargo.com wrote:
>> To add a little history for this particular topic.. we approached
>> Microsoft with this concern about a year ago and after learning
>> support was not planned, did approach the CAB and raised this as an
>> issue for compliance. Response a year ago from CAB was that it would
>> be re-evaluated this year again to see where the industry is at since
>> it was well known that some vendors were out of compliance when this
>> was put into the BR. Since we were told it would be re-evaluated our
>> expectations were that the BR would be adjusted based on current
>> conditions. Vendors have not all come up to compliance as hoped for
>> so the BR should really be adjusted to allow those remaining products
>> to be updated or for customers to move off those platforms.
>What, if anything, do you suggest we do differently this time round to
>make sure the same thing doesn't happen in a year's time?
>Public mailing list
>Public at cabforum.org
More information about the Public