Ian G wrote:
The reason for that language is that *if* it is important
to people then the language will be used against Mozilla
to advance some agenda or other.
If mozilla needs to change the policy in the future, it can do so.
...The notion of tying people to some policy in
the future is one fraught with danger.
Then I guess we should have NO policy, eh? Let every mozilla CA root czar do whatever he pleases, eh?
People better than us have been working on this
problem for more years than we can count.
This problem hasn't been around for more years than we can count.
There are mozilla drivers who have sais they don't trust *ANY* CAs and just want encryption. I guess they are omniscient and can always well without any help whether they're being attacked or not. God help mozilla if they get to excersize total discretion over the root CA list.
Not trusting CAs can be read two ways:
* there is no default reason to trust CAs, * the CAs are distrusted.
Or a third view: all certs should be taken and trusted at face value. The person to whom I'm referring (you know who) says he trusts no CAs, yet he is apparenly willing to use all certs because doing so gives him encryption. He apparently thinks that encryption == security, and that authentication is unnecessary. He probably has no concept of MITM. Maybe he thinks that he can tell if he's being phished or not by careful examination of the loaded page's contents. Shall we let him excersize total discretion over the root CAs?
The alternate is that we have to seek the re-approval of the document every time the concerns change to better reflect what threats we are facing today.
Precisely the point! I see that as a good thing!
But that means your concerns are the right concerns.
Our concerns. It means the concerns of the people who collectively form the policy are the right ones, and no one individual should have the power to ignore them at his sole discretion.
Which means you also have to do the job, and you have to not do a 'Postel' on everyone who is relying on you.
No, the policy does that.
You simply can't write down your concerns and expect other people to understand them, or to follow them.
You are arguing that there is no point in a written policy because people will not follow it. In that case, Frank can stop now, I guess.
I think we are pursuing a policy precisely because we can and DO "expect other people to understand them [and] to follow them."
-- Nelson B _______________________________________________ mozilla-crypto mailing list [email protected] http://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/mozilla-crypto
