[cabfpub] Ballot 218: Remove validation methods #1 and #5

Wayne Thayer wthayer at mozilla.com
Mon Jan 8 17:20:04 UTC 2018

On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 9:46 AM, Tim Hollebeek via Public <
public at cabforum.org> wrote:

> I’m not sure there are other valid cases (in fact I suspect there are
> not), but Wayne mentioned on the validation WG call that he’s concerned
> that this change could be very disruptive if not handled carefully, and I’m
> sympathetic to that concern.  Especially since on the same call he also
> pointed out the same flaw that Dimitris did …
My concern is based on a small sample size, but in reviewing CPS' I've
noted that government CAs often rely on Other than Dimitris,
they are not participating in this discussion and may not be aware of it.
That isn't a good excuse to delay needed fixes, but I do think that the
outright elimination of method #1 on Mar 1st will catch a number of these
CAs by surprise and we'll see compliance issues. The approach that Ryan and
Dimitris are discussing helps to address my concern.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20180108/59513704/attachment-0003.html>

More information about the Public mailing list