Re: Clarification about Ballot 193 and validity of a certificate issued on March 1st

> Yeah, I completely get how that would happen. I would just think this is a good learning opportunity to protect against ambiguously written text by giving a day's buffer. I absolutely agree Eric, and this is the primary reason I'm sharing this issue here. I am playing the role of a CA and

Re: Policy 2.6 Proposal: Require separate intermediates for different usages (e.g. server auth, S/MIME)

I think you should consider an an exception Issuing CAs including Name Constraints. This would keep allowing root signing services for corporate CAs without forcing multiple CAs. El viernes, 20 de abril de 2018, 23:03:17 (UTC+2), Wayne Thayer escribió: > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 8:40 PM, Jakob

Re: Clarification about Ballot 193 and validity of a certificate issued on March 1st

On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 5:01 PM, Rob Stradling wrote: > On 22/04/18 21:04, Eric Mill via dev-security-policy wrote: > >> On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 9:30 AM, Tim Shirley via dev-security-policy < >> dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org> wrote: >> >> First of all, it's important

Re: Clarification about Ballot 193 and validity of a certificate issued on March 1st

On 22/04/18 21:04, Eric Mill via dev-security-policy wrote: On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 9:30 AM, Tim Shirley via dev-security-policy < dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org> wrote: First of all, it's important to distinguish between the BR r But even if you accept my premise there, then you have

Re: Clarification about Ballot 193 and validity of a certificate issued on March 1st

On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 9:30 AM, Tim Shirley via dev-security-policy < dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org> wrote: > First of all, it's important to distinguish between the BR r > But even if you accept my premise there, then you have to ask "in what > timezone?" March 1 00:00:00 2018 GMT in