Policy-Discussion

[Tomáš Trnka <TomTrnka AT seznam.cz>]

Hello,

overall I like the proposal, but I'd suggest modifying 3.3 a bit. The current 
wording seems to contain a lot of practice/implementation stuff (about a 
button 
and so...) that is IMHO not necessary in a policy (and maybe even harmful, 
because it applies unnecessary constraints on the implementation). The PoJAM 
is probably not the right place to decide whether the system checks the 
consent using a button or checkbox or whatever. I'd suggest rewording 3.3 
like:
3.3  Therefore, a change should be put into the system: 
 If the member is under 18 years of age, the system shall require the Assurer 
to confirm during an Assurance that consent is established, or otherwise as 
considered by the Assurer,
 before additional higher reliance products are available. 
 The system therefore will block all "reliance" products as defined by policy 
(issuance of named certificates under CPS, Assurer under AP), until 
appropriate 
number of Assurers confirm that the parental consent is established.

(Feel free to make this proper English.)

I do know that it's maybe too late to propose this change, because many votes 
have already been cast. Therefore, I still vote Aye regardless of whether 
this 
change is accepted or not.

2T

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature