Policy-Discussion

["Ian G (Audit)" <iang AT cacert.org>]

On 12/2/09 17:22, Sam Johnston wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Ian G (Audit) 
> <iang AT cacert.org
> <mailto:iang AT cacert.org>>
>  wrote:
>
>
>     On this point, there is a discussion now going on over at Mozilla
>     where any upgrades will have to be covered by Audit. So that may
>     need to be factored into the above, if a "ruling" comes down on this
>     issue from the Mozilla process.
>
>
> Ok so what you're saying is that if it doesn't go in this time we're
> going to have to audit again later? I guess that answers our question
> then...


Um.  Not quite.  Before I was saying that this audit had no real effect 
on when the OA was added in.  Now I am modifying that somewhat because 
there will likely need to be some audit attention.

But, it is hard to be clear because the discussion is ongoing over at 
Mozilla.  It's substantially complicated because what the outside rabble 
are saying is "auditor must audit everything supplied" which is broken 
on several levels.

I don't think it effects CAcert much.  If the OA has to be added in with 
audit oversight then that's not an issue that I can see.  But it 
substantially effects every other CA.



iang

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