On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 7:16 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
> On 17/01/17 23:32, Ryan Sleevi wrote:
> > BRs 1.3.0 ( https://cabforum.org/wp-content/uploads/CAB-Forum-BR-
> 1.3.0.pdf
> > ) already include the clause (in Section 2.2) that:
> > "The CA SHALL publicly give effect to
On 18/01/2017 16:20, Gervase Markham wrote:
On 17/01/17 23:27, Jakob Bohm wrote:
Notes on the text in that branched section (other than the actual
change discussed here):
This paranthesis indicates none of these are in scope for this
particular issue, just something that might be their own
On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 07:23:35AM -0800, Peter Bowen wrote:
>
> > On Jan 18, 2017, at 7:18 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
> >
> > On 17/01/17 23:33, Jakob Bohm wrote:
> >> How about "_and versions and strong (>= 256 bits) hashes_",
> >
> > Do people think we need to go this far?
> On Jan 18, 2017, at 7:18 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
>
> On 17/01/17 23:33, Jakob Bohm wrote:
>> How about "_and versions and strong (>= 256 bits) hashes_",
>
> Do people think we need to go this far?
>
> If we do, we'll need them to specify filenames, not just document
>
On 17/01/17 23:27, Jakob Bohm wrote:
> Notes on the text in that branched section (other than the actual
> change discussed here):
>
> - It does not include some other changes under discussion (such as the
> new version of the BRs). This may need to be manually reapplied after
> merging in the
On 17/01/17 23:33, Jakob Bohm wrote:
> How about "_and versions and strong (>= 256 bits) hashes_",
Do people think we need to go this far?
If we do, we'll need them to specify filenames, not just document
titles. Otherwise, one wouldn't know if the hash was a .doc, a .pdf, or
what.
Gerv
On 17/01/17 23:32, Ryan Sleevi wrote:
> BRs 1.3.0 ( https://cabforum.org/wp-content/uploads/CAB-Forum-BR-1.3.0.pdf
> ) already include the clause (in Section 2.2) that:
> "The CA SHALL publicly give effect to these Requirements and represent
> that it will adhere to the latest published version."
7 matches
Mail list logo