Forwarding as requested. Gerv
-------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: RE: [cabfpub] RFC 3647 Compliance Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 04:26:35 +0000 From: Man Ho <[email protected]> To: [email protected] <[email protected]> CC: [email protected] <[email protected]> I can see that good points of deprecating the old RFC 2527. However, I can't tell whether most CAs would have nothing to do. At least I know there are CAs still using RFC 2527 format for some reasons. As members will continue discussing substances and expectations of this requirement for 6 months, I think a period of 6 months should be given to CAs making changes to their CP/CPS. [Hopefully someone could convey my comment to the forum because I'm not a member here. Thanks.] -----Original Message----- From: Public [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Gervase Markham via Public Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 4:30 PM To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <[email protected]> Cc: Gervase Markham <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] RFC 3647 Compliance On 26/04/17 03:58, Jeremy Rowley via Public wrote: > I agree. It shows the CA didn't accidentally delete or omit something. And if we define the exact text to be used, there may be benefits for automated analysis. Having all CPs and CPSes in a standard format might also have benefits for e.g. automated extraction of CAA identifiers, cross-CA comparisons of validation methods, and that sort of thing. Gerv _______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public _______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
