Policy-Discussion

[Alex Robertson <alex-uk AT cacert.org>]

On 29/05/2014 03:36, Benny Baumann wrote:
> Hi Benedikt,
>
> Am 27.05.2014 23:43, schrieb Benedikt Heintel:
> > > - 2.5 (private key disclosure),
> > I would let it as it is:
> >         2.5.3 does not make sense here, since it is about security and not
> > sharing. Sharing is denied in 2.3.5. which no-one opposed.
> >         2.5.4 is tricky, I would let it with arbitration to decide when 
> > necessary.
> What about giving a general hint in the CCA by including 2.5.4 and
> having arbitration decide on the specifica if conflicts arise?
Bearing in mind this is likely to be post-facto and Arbitration is only 
likely to override policy in extreme situations. I liked what Benedikt 
said about "voluntarily" elsewhere -  if that word was added either as a 
definition of sharing in general or in this change, I could support your 
proposed change more readily.

Alex

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