On 02/12/2009 09:11 PM, Ian G:
First of all I think we should edit this document only after some sort
of agreement here. I think we haven't finished discussion concerning
this issue yet, can you hold back for a minute?
Nope. It's a wiki;
It's a wiki because that's the media Frank decided would be best
suitable for the task.
and we can collect points of agreement that exist.
Yes, this is very correct: "points of agreement that exist"
Nothing on the wiki is binding, afaik.
These pages serve as a basis for Kathleen's work and were mostly agreed
upon here.
Also, point of order: there is no established way to agree and disagree
in this forum, so "we agreeing here" is a statement that lacks agreement :)
Well, when needed, Frank has made the call. Not everything I proposed
here was agreed upon as far as I can tell.
As I understand it, it is Mozilla's review, taken with public
consultation, not the other way around.
Absolutely.
Once the CA desk decides that is how it is, after consultation, that's
how it is. Frank held the line against requiring publication, and I for
one will support that against the steamrolling.
But there were calls made by David and me (others would perhaps join)
that in the absence of a published CPS, any information provided instead
of the lacking CPS must be confirmed by the auditor. If I understand
Franks position, this is exactly what he proposed as well in the
Certigna case. So we have agreement.
Now, do we really need a discussion about how to agree? Feel free, but
we should use our energy and time for other efforts, like reviewing the
next CA in the queue.
--
Regards
Signer: Eddy Nigg, StartCom Ltd.
Jabber: start...@startcom.org
Blog: https://blog.startcom.org
--
dev-tech-crypto mailing list
dev-tech-crypto@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-crypto
