Policy-Discussion

[Ian G <iang AT cacert.org>]

Added/changed, and noted that you spotted an actual bug there :) 
Thanks.  As this is a vote in progress leading to DRAFT, I've marked it 
BLUE so if there are objections, we'll regress it later.

But consider it now incorporated for voting purposes.

iang


On 19/01/2010 21:39, Tomáš Trnka wrote:
> 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