On 17/05/17 17:24, Ryan Sleevi via Public wrote: > Would you (and Jeremy and Gerv) be receptive to including this in > 3.2.2.4?
I have no objection; although would it have an effect on achievable implementation timelines? > There did not appear to be any objections raised on the list - simply a > discussion related to policy OIDs versus an extension, but the the > extension provides a semantically valid approach that minimizes any > changes to CA infrastructure. People with more expertise than me can make the call as to which way to do it :-) Gerv _______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
