Ryan Sleevi <r...@sleevi.com> writes: >I'm not sure this will be a very productive or valuable line of discussion.
What I'm pointing out is that beating up CAs over an interpretation of the requirements that didn't exist until about a week ago when it was pointed out in relation to DarkMatter is unfair on the CAs. If you're going to impose a specific interpretation on them then get it added to the BRs at a future date and enforce it then, don't retroactively punish CAs for something that didn't exist until a week or two ago. >Of course, there are quite glaring flaws in the argument, particularly that >"all" of these are compliant. None of them are compliant under any reasonable >reading. Again, it's your definition of "reasonable". A number of CAs, who applied their own reasonable reading of the same requirements, seem to think otherwise. They're now being punished for the fact that their reasonable reading differs from Mozilla's reasonable reading. >I would strongly caution CAs against adopting any of these interpretations, >and suggest it would be best for CAs to wholly ignore the message referenced. "Pay no attention to the message behind the curtain". Peter. _______________________________________________ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
