Duane wrote:
Shouldn't Geotrust/Comodo's CPS cover all these kinds of questions? If
not they are in breach and they should have direct obligations to
Mozilla etc...
Geotrust's documents are here:
http://www.geotrust.com/resources/repository/legal.asp
I checked the Reseller Agreement -
Gervase Markham wrote:
Nelson Bolyard wrote:
Is FlySSL acting as a Registration Authority (RA) for Geotrust/Comodo?
I don't think so; but how would I tell? Is the only way to tell by
asking Geotrust and Comodo?
That probably the best way.
Or is there something that has to be in the
for it
I guess it depends how their business operates. If they just get
details from applicants and pass them on to Geotrust and Comodo for
verification, then we don't have a problem. However, if Registerfly
are responsible for verifying part or all of the data, there is an
increased risk
it depends how their business operates. If they just get details
from applicants and pass them on to Geotrust and Comodo for
verification, then we don't have a problem. However, if Registerfly are
responsible for verifying part or all of the data, there is an increased
risk that erroneous
I'm raising this up to the top level to get it more visibility. There is
earlier discussion deep in the thread titled Proposal for Mozilla CA
policy extension.
The domain registrar Registerfly is melting down. They have an SSL
business, FlySSL[0]. As I understand it, they are an SSL reseller
