Doug Turner wrote:
Maybe this isn't the right newsgroup, but I just thought I toss this
out....
Why do we need to add more CA's into Mozilla?
The issue is that the set that is in place
derives from a long time ago (mostly, as set
up by Netscape, but that's only relevant by
way of history).
Since those days, things have changed. Some
of the roots are no longer in use, some might
be undesirable for some reason or another,
and some gaps might always have been in
there.
If the list isn't changed, what happens is
that the group of practical, available CAs
shrinks over time. This results in a slow
cartelisation of the space: fewer and more
costly CAs provide less and less of a service,
and new ideas are squashed. It's a process
of years, generally, but, years have passed!
By opening up the list to new providers, new
approaches and pressures for competition are
introduced, which helps the users. Examples
are QuoVadis which has a Bermudian aspect,
and CACert which has a "cheap certs for cheap
purposes" aspect.
From an economics point of view, opening up
the list is a vote towards competition, and
against franchise/cartelisation.
iang
_______________________________________________
mozilla-crypto mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/mozilla-crypto
