Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cacert-policy - Re: [CAcert-Policy] CPS bugs. Vote please. Colosing date of votes21 October 12pm UTC

Subject: Policy-Discussion

List archive

Re: [CAcert-Policy] CPS bugs. Vote please. Colosing date of votes21 October 12pm UTC


Chronological Thread 
  • From: maurice Kellenaers <maurice AT gkbikes.com>
  • To: Policy-Discussion <cacert-policy AT lists.cacert.org>
  • Subject: Re: [CAcert-Policy] CPS bugs. Vote please. Colosing date of votes21 October 12pm UTC
  • Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 17:17:28 +0200
  • List-archive: <https://lists.cacert.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/cacert-policy>
  • List-id: Policy-Discussion <cacert-policy.lists.cacert.org>

Teus Hagen wrote:
There seems to be a strong consensus on the following narrow question:

  *All information in the certificate is verified*.

This above decision crafts a strong principle which leaves the implementation 
(operational part) open.  Deliberately, the details  are left to later steps, 
so we can separate out the principle from the details.

There is *one* detailed statement on which we seem to have good consensus:

Verification means one of the following:

   1. Assurance, as per Assurance Programme (e.g. Name).
   2. "Evaluation" as per Certificate Policy Statement (e.g. domains,
      email address).
   3. Control, as per Certificate Policy Statement (e.g. serial numbers,
      etc.).

If we are all happy with that I propose to record the above as the accepted 
decision in the minutes.
Maurice: Aye
Then, the debate can continue on the other issues.

teus


_______________________________________________
Have you passed the Assurer Challenge yet?
http://wiki.cacert.org/wiki/AssurerChallenge

CAcert-Policy mailing list
CAcert-Policy AT lists.cacert.org
https://lists.cacert.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cacert-policy


Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.

Top of Page