[cabfpub] Fwd: RE: RFC 3647 Compliance
gerv at mozilla.org
Fri Apr 28 13:35:43 UTC 2017
Forwarding as requested.
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: RE: [cabfpub] RFC 3647 Compliance
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 04:26:35 +0000
From: Man Ho <manho at certizen.com>
To: public at cabforum.org <public at cabforum.org>
CC: gerv at mozilla.org <gerv at mozilla.org>
I can see that good points of deprecating the old RFC 2527. However, I
can't tell whether most CAs would have nothing to do. At least I know
there are CAs still using RFC 2527 format for some reasons. As members
will continue discussing substances and expectations of this requirement
for 6 months, I think a period of 6 months should be given to CAs making
changes to their CP/CPS.
[Hopefully someone could convey my comment to the forum because I'm not
a member here. Thanks.]
From: Public [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Gervase
Markham via Public
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 4:30 PM
To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>
Cc: Gervase Markham <gerv at mozilla.org>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] RFC 3647 Compliance
On 26/04/17 03:58, Jeremy Rowley via Public wrote:
> I agree. It shows the CA didn't accidentally delete or omit something.
And if we define the exact text to be used, there may be benefits for
Having all CPs and CPSes in a standard format might also have benefits for
e.g. automated extraction of CAA identifiers, cross-CA comparisons of
validation methods, and that sort of thing.
Public mailing list
Public at cabforum.org
More information about the Public