Renting was a short hand way of saying some members may not own a trusted root. They may have the contractual right to use an issuing subroot of a trusted root owned by another CA – whether they are hosting the issuing subroot themselves or the issuing subroot is hosted for them by the CA that owns the root, or by others.
Whether or not they “own” the issuing subroot, or just have a limited ability to use the subroot for a limited time (hence, “rent”) may vary from case to case. That’s the language we need to work on if we want to amend the Bylaws on qualifications for CA members. From: Ryan Sleevi [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2017 9:38 AM To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <[email protected]> Cc: Kirk Hall <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] [EXTERNAL] Bylaw interpretation: root store membership required? Can you describe what "renting" a root entails? How is it objectively quantified as distinct from "own or control"? I would presume, for example, that anyone "renting" a root (the first time I have heard of such claim) would be able to demonstrate "control" for the duration of the rental, much as I would be able to demonstrate control of a vehicle that I was renting and driving.
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
