Stephen
I understand that. However, if the language stands as proposed, I believe
it will cause confusion. eIDAS is regional. My proposed language was
intended to acknowledge that fact.
Also, I don't believe it is explicit that this is a 3rd party credential.
As I read it (and I admit I may
ou see the current SBRs as allowing
CAs to rely upon digital signatures in the context of 3.2.4.1 today?
Thank you!
-Clint
On Apr 25, 2024, at 7:20 AM, Judith Spencer via Smcwg-public
mailto:smcwg-public@cabforum.org> > wrote:
Stephen
My primary concern with the proposed change
Stephen
My primary concern with the proposed change is that once it finds it's way
into the BR, anyone not in the EU will be eliminated from trusting existing
digital signatures as evidence. For example, here in the U.S., the U.S.
Government has an extremely robust digital credential based on a
