Re: Issuer field in the CRL should be byte-for-byte equivalent with that in cert

On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 7:26:14 AM UTC-8, Jakob Bohm wrote: > > No, I am suggesting that while *still* listing it as a problematic > practice for an edge case from a few few CAs, Mozilla offers those few > CAs an easier way out, while at the same time obtaining for both itself > and any oth

Re: Issuer field in the CRL should be byte-for-byte equivalent with that in cert

On 03/02/2017 14:30, Ryan Sleevi wrote: On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 9:37 PM Jakob Bohm wrote: On 03/02/2017 05:22, Ryan Sleevi wrote: On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 3:59 PM, Jakob Bohm wrote: On 02/02/2017 00:46, Kathleen Wilson wrote: All, I've added another Potentially Problematic Practice, as f

Re: Issuer field in the CRL should be byte-for-byte equivalent with that in cert

On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 9:37 PM Jakob Bohm wrote: > On 03/02/2017 05:22, Ryan Sleevi wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 3:59 PM, Jakob Bohm > wrote: > > > >> On 02/02/2017 00:46, Kathleen Wilson wrote: > >> > >>> All, > >>> > >>> I've added another Potentially Problematic Practice, as follows. > >

Re: Taiwan GRCA Root Renewal Request

Kathleen Wilson writes: >Indeed, and as per your comment here: >https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1056341#c24 So just to satisfy my curiosity, it's been known ever since top-down construction was first advocated by PKI loon^H^H^Htheoreticians: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoOrmK4O