Eddy, I agree that the Potentially Problematic Practices wiki page is a useful resource during the "information gathering period" that happens *before* a Root Certificate is ever accepted by Mozilla.
But (reading back a few messages in this thread), the context of this discussion is Paul's proposal of a "retroactive change to its (Mozilla's) acceptance policy in the pile" in order to curtail the use of MD5 by CAs who have *already* been accepted by Mozilla. Are you saying that Mozilla could change the Potentially Problematic Practices wiki page, and then use "non-compliance" to anything on that page as grounds for pulling a previously approved Root Certificate from the trust pile? On Monday 12 January 2009 11:26:03 Eddy Nigg wrote: > On 01/12/2009 01:08 PM, Rob Stradling: > > Eddy, I apologize if I'm misinterpreting your response to Paul's last > > comment, but I think you are suggesting that Mozilla could "hold a CA to > > doing something" that is 'currently in the 'problematic practices'" wiki > > page, purely because that wiki page is a document that is (you allege) > > "presented to every CA for a while already". > > > > If that is what you are saying, I disagree with you. The wiki page > > clearly says (capitalization mine)... > > - "POTENTIALLY problematic CA practices". > > - "we do NOT NECESSARILY consider them security risks". > > - "Some of these practices MAY be addressed in future versions of the > > policy". > > > > If Mozilla want to "hold a CA to doing something", then IMHO the first > > step towards achieving this has to be to update the Mozilla CA > > Certificate Policy to explicitly cover that "something". > > I absolutely agree with you and in my opinion this is what should be > done - at least for some of those practices. However as I understand, > not everything is every time clear so cut to make it a policy, hence > there are problematic practices which are reviewed on a case-to-case > basis for every CA individually. Confronting the CA with this page early > on during the information gathering period makes the CA aware of > potential problems during the process. This is what happened for a while > now. I think that not every bit and byte must be listed in the policy, > but by-laws may exists to assist the intend of the policy. > > Instead I think the policy should mention that such by-laws may exists - > as matter of fact section 4 deals with it more or less. -- Rob Stradling Senior Research & Development Scientist Comodo - Creating Trust Online Office Tel: +44.(0)1274.730505 Fax Europe: +44.(0)1274.730909 www.comodo.com Comodo CA Limited, Registered in England No. 04058690 Registered Office: 3rd Floor, 26 Office Village, Exchange Quay, Trafford Road, Salford, Manchester M5 3EQ This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender by replying to the e-mail containing this attachment. Replies to this email may be monitored by Comodo for operational or business reasons. Whilst every endeavour is taken to ensure that e-mails are free from viruses, no liability can be accepted and the recipient is requested to use their own virus checking software. _______________________________________________ dev-tech-crypto mailing list dev-tech-crypto@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-crypto
