2015年11月13日金曜日 23時27分46秒 UTC+9 Kathleen Wilson: > On 11/13/15 5:43 AM, Peter Kurrasch wrote: > > Kathleen, is SECOM getting special treatment? I was wondering if there was > > some reason to move forward before a CA has everything in order? Will we be > > seeing more of this going forward? > > > > I thought everything was in order, except perhaps there might be a few > more suggestions to updating their CPS that could be tracked in parallel > (i.e. not show stoppers). We have done that in the past, and Ryan had > sent me email saying that he might not be able to participate in the > inclusion review discussions for a while, so to go forward without him. > > But as you can see in the bug I realized that was not quite the case > when I went to write the summary to recommend approval. So, in the bug I > clarified that SECOM needs to make further updates to their CP/CPS > before we can move forward. > > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1096205#c28 > > So, it was not intentional. > > However, I would like to get the root inclusion/update discussions > moving forward again -- those discussions have stalled out. > > Kathleen
Dear Kathleen-san, The updated CP for detailed descrition(the certificate subscriber owns/controls) about domain verification for the section 3.2.7 is attached on bugzilla. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8689921 Email address verification does not apply to this EV SSL CP/CPS. The corresponding section were made comprehensible by blue characters. Thank you for your consideration. _______________________________________________ dev-security-policy mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
