Question: BR requirement about structuring CPS according to RFC 3647

All, In section 2.2 of version 1.3 of the CA/Browser Forum's Baseline Requirements, it says: "The disclosures MUST include all the material required by RFC 2527 or RFC 3647, and MUST be structured in accordance with either RFC 2527 or RFC 3647." Some government CAs are bound by local

Re: Update to phasing out SHA-1 Certs

On 2015-10-21 22:18, s...@gmx.ch wrote: There was also a plan for certificates with 'notAfter >= 2017-1-1' (still valid in 2017+). Chrome already shows a broken https icon for them. See https://sha1-2017.badssl.com/ This was discussed in https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=942515 So

Re: Question: BR requirement about structuring CPS according to RFC 3647

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Kathleen Wilson wrote: > All, > > In section 2.2 of version 1.3 of the CA/Browser Forum's Baseline > Requirements, it says: > > "The disclosures MUST include all the material required by RFC 2527 or RFC > 3647, and MUST be structured in

Re: Question: BR requirement about structuring CPS according to RFC 3647

eIDAS is becoming the only common Law on e-signatures (for the EU) and I'm not aware of any regulation on mandatory CP/CPS structures. Thanks, M.D. On 10/22/2015 8:56 PM, Richard Barnes wrote: On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Kathleen Wilson wrote: All, In section