On the contrary, everything needs to be improved with time. Just because it could be made better doesn’t make it useless or bad.
-Tim From: Ryan Sleevi [mailto:r...@sleevi.com] Sent: Monday, December 11, 2017 1:09 PM To: Tim Hollebeek <tim.holleb...@digicert.com> Cc: r...@sleevi.com; Jonathan Rudenberg <jonat...@titanous.com>; mozilla-dev-security-pol...@lists.mozilla.org Subject: Re: On the value of EV On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Tim Hollebeek <tim.holleb...@digicert.com <mailto:tim.holleb...@digicert.com> > wrote: Certainly, as you noted, one option is to improve EV beyond simply being an assertion of legal existence. Does this mean we're in agreement that EV doesn't provide value to justify the UI then? ;-) I say it loaded and facetiously, but I think we'd need to be honest and open that if we're saying something needs to be 'more' than EV, in order to be useful and meaningful to users - which is what justifies the UI surface, versus being useful to others, as Matt highlighted - then either EV meets the bar of UI utility or it doesn't. And if it doesn't, then orthogonal to and separate from efforts to add "Validation ++" (whether they be QWACS in eIDAS terms or something else), then there's no value in the UI surface today, and whether there's any value in UI surface in that Validation++ should be evaluated on the merits of Validation++'s proposals, and not by invoking EV or grandfathering it in.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
