Frank Hecker: > Eddy Nigg (StartCom Ltd.) wrote: > >> 3.) Here a few questions in relation to the LiteSSL CPS: >> > <snip> > >> * 4.1 states that the enrollment process MAY include check for >> domain ownership. This means that the checks can be omitted? >> > > I think this is another case of sloppy CPS language.
OK, Frank, I've read your arguments concerning this particular issue. Of course a response from Comodo themselves would have been interesting too. Since this CPS replaces only parts of another CPS your arguments about context and unlucky formulation are acceptable. > Section 4.2.7 of > the LiteSSL addendum to the 2.4 CPS seems pretty clear that domain > ownership is validated one way or the other: either using emails sent to > a domain administrative address or by requesting additional > documentation of the applicant. I suspect the use of the word "may" in > the context of sections 2.4.1.k and 2.4.1.l was intended to mean that > the exact choice of method was at Comodo's discretion. > Not nitpicking on this one, the intention is apparently as you said. -- Regards Signer: Eddy Nigg, StartCom Ltd. <http://www.startcom.org> Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Blog: Join the Revolution! <http://blog.startcom.org> Phone: +1.213.341.0390 _______________________________________________ dev-tech-crypto mailing list dev-tech-crypto@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-crypto
