On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 8:00 AM, Jakob Bohm via dev-security-policy < dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org> wrote:
> I am trying to say that I use the word "issue" as the weakest category, > orders of magnitude less serious than an absolute cause for rejection. And I'm trying to suggest that it's in the category that is below the floor acceptable for discussion in the group, because it's purely speculative and without ability to evaluate. It might be appropriate to raise as a "suggestion" during a public review phase (which this is not), but that it's misleading and misrepresenting to suggest it's an "issue" with any weight whatsoever, precisely because it's absent factual detail and cannot be evaluated in any way - much like statements such as "Government X might do Y to this CA", which is no more valuable than a statement "Unicorns might exist and be morally repulsed by this particular arrangement of words in the CPS". Yes, it's a possibility, but it's in no way actionable, and it's certainly not appropriate to suggest that, say, Mozilla should require the CA to change the sequence, to avoid offending the Unicorns and thus bringing about the destruction of Earth. _______________________________________________ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
