On 12/18/2008 07:14 PM, István Zsolt BERTA:
Had we known that English documentation is a requirement, we could have chosen to fulfill it by submitting a translation, we could have sought other way to sell certificates accepted by Mozilla, or we could have decided to forget about the Mozilla-inclusion-issue and to advise the Hungarian public to use Explorer instead. Mozilla has the right to determine the requirements for including CAs, but if this is a requirement, then why it is not stated, why it is not public?
István, even though I understand your frustration and agree with the basic understanding that requirements should be published accordingly, I also must state there has been at least one issue (notably with your OCSP responder I think) in addition to our inability simply not to be able to read the CP/CPS. As more and more CAs from Non-English speaking countries are applying for inclusion, Mozilla will have to find a solution (in this or the other way). Please note that many CAs from such countries publish their CP/CPS in English, sometimes in addition to their native language. This is in my opinion expected behavior and practice in this industry - specially if the CA is supposed to be included in a product used to be world-wide and hence the relying parties.
Being a long-term Mozilla fan, I am really sorry to say that the same procedure at Microsoft was faster, much better defined, less ad hoc, and a lot more transparent.
Agreed, Microsoft is a professional company which doesn't involve any input from a community as with Mozilla. But how did they verify and understand your CP/CPS? Did they rely solemnly on the audit report? Does your OCSP responder not present a problem to them?
-- Regards Signer: Eddy Nigg, StartCom Ltd. Jabber: start...@startcom.org Blog: https://blog.startcom.org _______________________________________________ dev-tech-crypto mailing list dev-tech-crypto@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-crypto
