On 17/04/17 19:47, Dean Coclin via Public wrote: > I think this is the crux of the matter at hand. There are different > interpretations of “posting” and interpreting it one way or the other is > the cause of the issue. Looking at “entirety” is one way. Looking at > “intent” is another.
If intent were normative, then my life would be easier in dealing with CA misissuance and BR violations, because almost all of them are unintended, and so I should treat the CA as if they had succeeded in their goal of producing compliant certs :-) > I remember a time when we did not have public voting. Then a change was > made, with the intent being to inject transparency into the voting > process and publicly disclose where CAs and Browsers came down on > issues. It would seem this intent is satisfied by the chair’s disclosure > of the votes online. Without saying I don't trust the chair :-), there's a lot of difference between putting your name to something, and someone else reporting that you've put your name to it. Gerv _______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
