On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 7:26:14 AM UTC-8, Jakob Bohm wrote:
>
> No, I am suggesting that while *still* listing it as a problematic
> practice for an edge case from a few few CAs, Mozilla offers those few
> CAs an easier way out, while at the same time obtaining for both itself
> and any
On 03/02/2017 14:30, Ryan Sleevi wrote:
On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 9:37 PM Jakob Bohm wrote:
On 03/02/2017 05:22, Ryan Sleevi wrote:
On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 3:59 PM, Jakob Bohm
wrote:
On 02/02/2017 00:46, Kathleen Wilson wrote:
All,
I've added
On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 9:37 PM Jakob Bohm wrote:
> On 03/02/2017 05:22, Ryan Sleevi wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 3:59 PM, Jakob Bohm
> wrote:
> >
> >> On 02/02/2017 00:46, Kathleen Wilson wrote:
> >>
> >>> All,
> >>>
> >>> I've added another
On 03/02/2017 05:22, Ryan Sleevi wrote:
On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 3:59 PM, Jakob Bohm wrote:
On 02/02/2017 00:46, Kathleen Wilson wrote:
All,
I've added another Potentially Problematic Practice, as follows.
On 02/02/2017 00:46, Kathleen Wilson wrote:
All,
I've added another Potentially Problematic Practice, as follows.
https://wiki.mozilla.org/CA:Problematic_Practices#Issuer_Encoding_in_CRL
The encoding of the Issuer field in the CRL should be byte-for-byte equivalent
with the encoding of the
All,
I've added another Potentially Problematic Practice, as follows.
https://wiki.mozilla.org/CA:Problematic_Practices#Issuer_Encoding_in_CRL
The encoding of the Issuer field in the CRL should be byte-for-byte equivalent
with the encoding of the Issuer in the certificate; that is, using the
6 matches
Mail list logo