On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Tim Hollebeek <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Certainly, as you noted, one option is to improve EV beyond simply being > an assertion of legal existence. > Does this mean we're in agreement that EV doesn't provide value to justify the UI then? ;-) I say it loaded and facetiously, but I think we'd need to be honest and open that if we're saying something needs to be 'more' than EV, in order to be useful and meaningful to users - which is what justifies the UI surface, versus being useful to others, as Matt highlighted - then either EV meets the bar of UI utility or it doesn't. And if it doesn't, then orthogonal to and separate from efforts to add "Validation ++" (whether they be QWACS in eIDAS terms or something else), then there's no value in the UI surface today, and whether there's any value in UI surface in that Validation++ should be evaluated on the merits of Validation++'s proposals, and not by invoking EV or grandfathering it in. _______________________________________________ dev-security-policy mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
