On 04/04/2018 04:16, Matt Palmer wrote:
On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 03:16:53AM +0200, Jakob Bohm via dev-security-policy
wrote:
On 03/04/2018 02:35, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 02:11:07AM +0200, Jakob Bohm via dev-security-policy
wrote:
seems
to be mostly justified as a poor
On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 03:16:53AM +0200, Jakob Bohm via dev-security-policy
wrote:
> On 03/04/2018 02:35, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 02:11:07AM +0200, Jakob Bohm via
> > dev-security-policy wrote:
> > > seems
> > > to be mostly justified as a poor workaround for the browsers
On 03/04/2018 02:35, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 02:11:07AM +0200, Jakob Bohm via dev-security-policy
wrote:
seems
to be mostly justified as a poor workaround for the browsers and
certificate libraries not properly implementing reliable revocation
checks.
The problem is not in
On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 02:11:07AM +0200, Jakob Bohm via dev-security-policy
wrote:
> seems
> to be mostly justified as a poor workaround for the browsers and
> certificate libraries not properly implementing reliable revocation
> checks.
The problem is not in the libraries, or even the
: Alex Gaynor; Tim Hollebeek; MozPol
Subject: Re: 825 days success and future progress!
In past discussions, the proposal was 1 year to 2 years, and 1 year to 1 year
after that. We're now at the midway point, so it seems appropriate to discuss
how to get shorter.
On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 3
orlife]
From: Ryan Sleevi [mailto:r...@sleevi.com]
Sent: Montag, 2. April 2018 21:16
To: Buschart, Rufus (GS IT HR 7 4)
Cc: Alex Gaynor; Tim Hollebeek; MozPol
Subject: Re: 825 days success and future progress!
In past discussions, the proposal was 1 year to 2 years, and 1 year to 1 year
after that.
alf Of Alex
> Gaynor via dev-security-policy
> Sent: Montag, 2. April 2018 20:51
> To: Tim Hollebeek
> Cc: MozPol
> Subject: Re: 825 days success and future progress!
>
> Hi Tim,
>
> I'd have suggested an even shorter period, say 13 months, except I
> anticipated
b...@digicert.com>
> *Cc:* Alex Gaynor <agay...@mozilla.com>; MozPol <
> mozilla-dev-security-pol...@lists.mozilla.org>
> *Subject:* Re: 825 days success and future progress!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 2:28 PM, Tim Hollebeek via dev-security-polic
ufus.busch...@siemens.com
www.siemens.com/ingenuityforlife
-Original Message-
From: dev-security-policy
[mailto:dev-security-policy-bounces+rufus.buschart=siemens@lists.mozilla.org]
On Behalf Of Alex Gaynor via dev-security-policy
Sent: Montag, 2. April 2018 20:51
To: Tim Hollebee
gt;
Cc: Alex Gaynor <agay...@mozilla.com>; MozPol
<mozilla-dev-security-pol...@lists.mozilla.org>
Subject: Re: 825 days success and future progress!
On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 2:28 PM, Tim Hollebeek via dev-security-policy
<dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org
<ma
On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 2:28 PM, Tim Hollebeek via dev-security-policy <
dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org> wrote:
> 18 months is not significantly different from 825 days. So there's really
> no benefit.
>
So it sounds like you're supportive of 13 months, then, so that we arrive
at an
To: Tim Hollebeek <tim.holleb...@digicert.com>
Cc: MozPol <mozilla-dev-security-pol...@lists.mozilla.org>
Subject: Re: 825 days success and future progress!
Hi Tim,
I'd have suggested an even shorter period, say 13 months, except I anticipated
CAs would object that it was too great
Hi Tim,
I'd have suggested an even shorter period, say 13 months, except I
anticipated CAs would object that it was too great a change too suddenly,
precisely as they did when this subject was last discussed!
While I appreciate that changing BRs can be difficult for customer
communications, the
18 months is not significantly different from 825 days. So there's really
no benefit.
People have to stop wanting to constantly change the max validity period.
It's difficult enough to communicate these changes to consumers and
customers, and it really drives them nuts. I can only imagine what
14 matches
Mail list logo
