Policy-Discussion

[maurice Kellenaers <maurice AT gkbikes.com>]

Sam Johnston wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 6:03 PM, maurice Kellenaers 
> <maurice AT gkbikes.com <mailto:maurice AT gkbikes.com>> wrote:
>
>
>     
> <mailto:samj AT samj.net>
>     maybe a strange idea, but is there a way to say :  "verified by
>     Acme, who is verified by CAcert.org" or something like this?
>     that way Acme can use cn="" at their discretion in their cert
>     while CAcert MAY/COULD ask to evaluate/verify the cn= of the cert.
>
>
> That is *exactly* what is proposed - the user will see 'Sam Johnston 
> verified by Australian Online Solutions' or some such thing and if 
> they look at the chain they will see that the reason their browser 
> accepted this assertion is because Australian Online Solutions was 
> verified by CAcert, who is satisfied that they are who they say they 
> are and that they will follow the rules when requesting certificates 
> be issued by CAcert on their behalf using their escrowed root.
I might have misinterpreted the wording When I wrote the comment. (I'm 
not a native English speaker/writer). I was more thinking of the 
alternative below...
> The alternative (and status quo) is to say 'Sam Johnston verified by 
> CAcert' even though CAcert has not had anything to do with the individual.
>
> Sam

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