[Smcwg-public] a few remaining comments on the SMIME BRs that I still have not seen addressed

[Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA)]

On 30/8/2022 11:22 μ.μ., Stephen Davidson via Smcwg-public wrote:
>
> Hello Wendy –
>
> Thanks for your input. Responses inline below.
>
> Regards, Stephen
>

[...]

> Definition of Applicant - it would read better as "Once the 
> Certificate is issued" instead of "Once the Certificate issues"
>
> And the example is out of place in a document about SMIME certificates 
> - "For Certificates issued to devices, the Applicant is the entity 
> that controls or operates the device named in the Certificate, even if 
> the device is sending the actual Certificate Request."
>
> >> Standard language from TLS BR.  Language does apply to email gateways.
>
> 4.9.5 #4 The example is not relevant for SMIME certificates and should 
> be deleted:
>
> The entity making the complaint (for example, a complaint from a law 
> enforcement official that a Web site is engaged in illegal activities 
> should carry more weight than a complaint from a consumer alleging 
> that they didn't receive the goods they ordered);
>
> >> Standard language from TLS BR
>

So all we need to do is replace "a Web site" with "an email address"?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/smcwg-public/attachments/20220831/fae217cd/attachment-0001.html>