On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 06:14:19PM -0800, Lewis Resmond via dev-security-policy
wrote:
> I have read the debate about the underscores and I understand that they were
> never intended in the RFC.
> But I wonder, does it now mean that people who have a domain name with
> underscore will never be
Hello,
I have read the debate about the underscores and I understand that they were
never intended in the RFC.
But I wonder, does it now mean that people who have a domain name with
underscore will never be able to receive a certificate again?
I'm just being curious.
On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 4:43 PM Jeremy Rowley
wrote:
> But this part isn't true "Browsers are not capable of granting
> 'exceptions' to the Baseline Requirements", at least for Mozilla. See the
> Mozilla auditor requirements for example. Perhaps better stated that they
> don't have to implement
But this part isn't true "Browsers are not capable of granting 'exceptions' to
the Baseline Requirements", at least for Mozilla. See the Mozilla auditor
requirements for example. Perhaps better stated that they don't have to
implement the standards they don't like?
-Original Message-
On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 1:54 PM Wayne Thayer via dev-security-policy <
dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org> wrote:
> Since a number of questions and concerns have been raised regarding the
> sunset of underscore characters in dNSNames, I would like to summarize
> Mozilla’s position on the issue
Since a number of questions and concerns have been raised regarding the
sunset of underscore characters in dNSNames, I would like to summarize
Mozilla’s position on the issue as follows:
In early November, the CA/Browser Forum passed ballot SC12 [1], creating a
sunset period aimed at ending the
6 matches
Mail list logo
