[cabfpub] Fwd: RE: RFC 3647 Compliance

Gervase Markham gerv at mozilla.org
Fri Apr 28 06:35:43 MST 2017


Forwarding as requested.

Gerv

-------- 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.]

-----Original Message-----
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
automated analysis.

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.

Gerv
_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
Public at cabforum.org
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public


More information about the Public mailing list