Because diverse and sometimes even contradictory root program requirements are not a good thing. It seems like we should be able to reach agreement on what the minimum criteria should be, just as we have for TLS.
-Tim From: Ryan Sleevi <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, January 28, 2019 3:14 PM To: Tim Hollebeek <[email protected]> Cc: Wayne Thayer <[email protected]>; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Draft SMIME Working Group Charter On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 2:44 PM Tim Hollebeek <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: I’m fine with “or equivalent” exceptions for various use cases, as long as we specify what those are and they accomplish the same goals. I do have strong opinions about how “*.gov” should be managed, specifically that I don’t think it’s possible to assure that the domain portion of the email is being consistently validated, absent some oversight by some independent entity. I suppose this will be a core part of the discussion, then. I will, however, note that ICANN has adopted a very different philosophy than you with respect to domain names, and similarly, Microsoft has recognized the distinction with how they manage their program. This also aligns with a variety of other technology and non-technology sectors, and is, perhaps, a core part of disagreement. Could you help me understand why, for purposes of CA/B Forum membership, you believe they should be overseen by someone that the CA/B Forum designates, rather than by an entity that a root program designates? Perhaps I'm missing why it's important to exclude these parties from the Forum, as that might help clarify the language.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
