> On 8 Aug 2018, at 7:42 pm, Ryan Sleevi via Servercert-wg > <servercert...@cabforum.org> wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 10:30 PM Tim Hollebeek <tim.holleb...@digicert.com > <mailto:tim.holleb...@digicert.com>> wrote: > From: mailto://tim.holleb...@digicert.com > <mailto://tim.holleb...@digicert.com> > To: mailto://sle...@google.com <mailto://sle...@google.com> > > > To make it clear, I don’t think turning things into URIs adds value for > customers. E-mail addresses usually AREN’T in the form of URIs, as noted > above. > > > Except, again, this is dodging the point that Corey raised, and which you > haven't at all addressed, in which you're proposing a form that leaves it > entirely ambiguous to the CA, and subjective to their interpretation, as to > the form - and ambiguous for customers. > > If your view is that you're being customer focused, then that's not really > sustained by any of the positions being advocated here. The ambiguity you're > arguing is a strength is going to lead to misissued certificates and confused > customers.
I would encourage mailing list participants to remember that writing a ballot is a valuable contribution to the CABforum, and we should remember that list participants may have different strengths and not always be able to come up with perfect wording covering, for example, e-mail addresses as they have been developed over 40 years of the Internet. At no point in this discussion has anyone actually proposed better wording than ‘valid e-mail address’ and so I really don’t think it’s fair to make comments like the above. If it’s desired to further clarify, I would say ‘valid e-mail address as defined in RFC 5321 section 2.3.11’. However I think this is unnecessary.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list Public@cabforum.org https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
