I think your last sentence illustrates the fundamental issue - the discussion
of creating another CA isn't really scope of the standards body (as it's purely
the establishment and operation of a business practice). The discussion should
revolve around the proposed technology rather than the oper
For the record, the CAB Forum doesn't police anything and thus can't "turn a
blind eye" to any action. Whether a CA fulfills a give requirement is in the
discretion of the browser implementing the CAB Forum BRs, the auditor
providing the attestation of compliance and the CA.
That said, I think the
dicate acceptance.
-Original Message-
From: Acme [mailto:acme-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ron
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 1:50 PM
To: Jeremy Rowley
Cc: acme@ietf.org; Jacob Hoffman-Andrews
Subject: Re: [Acme] Simplifying ToS agreement
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 03:43:14PM +0000, Jeremy Ro
Why not allow both? We'd use (a) over (b), but if email isn't required, then
(b) is certainly an acceptable method of confirming ToS acceptance.
-Original Message-
From: Acme [mailto:acme-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Hugo Landau
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 11:13 PM
To: Jacob Hoffman
