On 07/03/17 10:07, Ryan Sleevi wrote:
>>> - As you reformat this, perhaps it's worth borrowing the Microsoft of
>>> approach of mapping trust bits to criteria
I have now tried this; thank you for your wording suggestion. Please let
me know what you think.
I've also updated it to use RFC 2119
, March 17, 2017 9:41 AM
To: mozilla-dev-security-pol...@lists.mozilla.org
Subject: Re: Mozilla Root Store Policy 2.4.1
On 06/03/17 15:10, Gervase Markham wrote:
> The next stage in the improvement of the Mozilla Root Store Policy is
> version 2.4.1. This is version 2.4, but rear
On 06/03/17 15:10, Gervase Markham wrote:
> The next stage in the improvement of the Mozilla Root Store Policy is
> version 2.4.1. This is version 2.4, but rearranged significantly to have
> a more topic-based ordering and structure to it. I have also made
> editorial changes to clean up and
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 5:09 AM, Gervase Markham via dev-security-policy <
dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org> wrote:
> > 1.1 Scope
> > Item 2:
> > Bullet 1: This would allow the anyEKU to be considered 'out of
> scope'.
> > Is that intentional? (notwithstanding Section 5.3.1)
> >
Hi Gerv,
I'm assuming as with previous discussions, you'd like to keep the
discussion on the list.
Overall: I would suggest every "should" be replaced with either a "must" or
a "shall" RFC2119 style, to avoid any "best practice" vs "required mandate"
confusion.
1.1 Scope
Item 2:
Bullet 1:
The next stage in the improvement of the Mozilla Root Store Policy is
version 2.4.1. This is version 2.4, but rearranged significantly to have
a more topic-based ordering and structure to it. I have also made
editorial changes to clean up and clarify language, and improved the
Markdown markup.
6 matches
Mail list logo
