No problem, I knew what you meant.  I just wanted to fish the topic out of your 
long email and emphasize it.

 

Since I’m on a plane on a Friday afternoon, and need some mindless work, I 
collected some references to refresh people’s memories:

 

https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2016-April/007402.html

https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2016-September/008473.html

https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2017-January/009104.html

https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2017-January/009105.html

https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2017-January/009114.html

https://cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/2016-June/000319.html

 

Maybe on my flight on Tuesday I’ll have time to actually READ the links instead 
of just collecting them and posting them 😊

 

-Tim

 

From: Ryan Sleevi [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Friday, March 2, 2018 9:24 AM
To: Tim Hollebeek <[email protected]>
Cc: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <[email protected]>; Paul Hoffman 
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] [Ext] BR Authorized Ports, add 8443

 

For sure. Apologies if that was worded confusing - we're hugely supportive of 
SRVNames, but solving the technical and policy issues around them is thorny and 
will require technical expertise, and I think most of the technical expertise 
of the Forum has been otherwise occupied by a number of more pressing matters 
(adoption of Certificate Transparency, strengthening of validation methods, 
reducing certificate lifetimes, etc)

 

On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 11:20 AM, Tim Hollebeek <[email protected] 
<mailto:[email protected]> > wrote:

We’re willing to continue talking through those issues in an attempt to reach a 
solution.  I do think SRVNames would be a useful improvement.  For us, the lack 
of movement has had more to do with time constraints than technical constraints!

 

While SRVNames do offer a way to scope the authority to a particular service 
(on any port), there's been no movement towards adopting them in the CA/Browser 
Forum, due to the issues they would have with technically constrained sub-CAs. 

 

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
[email protected]
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public

Reply via email to