Dear all, We would like to clarify that we have tried our best to present ourselves to the Mozilla program and other root stores, despite the difficulties we have encountered over the last two years to remain within the BR SSL requirements. During this journey within this group, it was just learning, we don't see it as a defeat. One of the situations that perhaps inhibited us was the wrong understanding that we had because we had that the ICP-Brasil regulations should be met first. We will prepare ourselves better and make sure that our root (RAIZ CA) is able to meet all browser program requirements. It was an excellent learning experience, and we would like to thank you for all the feedback you have given us. Our thanks in particular to Ben Wilson, who was always patient, polite and teaching us, guiding us to try to get the right direction.
Em quarta-feira, 1 de março de 2023 às 15:51:29 UTC-3, Kathleen Wilson escreveu: > Just to clarify -- I was speaking on behalf of Mozilla, not on behalf of > any other root store who they may be applying to. So for this discussion > here in the CCADB Public forum I think we should close this discussion now, > and then the root stores the CA is applying to can make their independent > decisions. For Mozilla I think the decision should be to deny this > particular request. > > Thanks, > Kathleen > > > On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 10:08:13 AM UTC-8 > [email protected] wrote: > >> I personally agree that they should have to start over. >> >> Putting aside all the other concerning issues in this thread it is super >> concerning that they have come this far without pre-issuance linting. This >> has been a standard for many years and applying for inclusion without this >> standard practice strongly suggests there are other operation issues to be >> discovered. >> >> As for not giving time to address concerns raised in the inclusion >> process, I do think some accommodation is needed but when it comes to >> basics like this it seems very appropriate to say start over. >> >> Ryan Hurst >> >> On Wed, Mar 1, 2023 at 10:00 AM Kathleen Wilson <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> I agree with Watson, so I think we should deny this root inclusion >>> request. >>> The CA may re-apply when they truly have everything in order. >>> >>> Also, for future discussions, perhaps we should not allow CAs root >>> inclusion discussions to be put on hold while the CA fixes things. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Kathleen >>> >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "CCADB Public" group. >> >> >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to [email protected]. >>> >> To view this discussion on the web visit >>> https://groups.google.com/a/ccadb.org/d/msgid/public/c0614023-9fde-4d12-a782-ac2cfa039286n%40ccadb.org >>> >>> <https://groups.google.com/a/ccadb.org/d/msgid/public/c0614023-9fde-4d12-a782-ac2cfa039286n%40ccadb.org?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>> . >>> >> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CCADB Public" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/ccadb.org/d/msgid/public/a5f1de46-6cc7-4b33-a650-a32f7fff0a8bn%40ccadb.org.
