On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 2:36 AM Clint Wilson wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 6:29 PM Ryan Sleevi via dev-security-policy <
> dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org> wrote:
>
>> Yup. And it’s been repeatedly acknowledged that is perfectly fine. The
>> proposed language further considers that, but
On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 6:29 PM Ryan Sleevi via dev-security-policy <
dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 11:53 PM Andy Warner via dev-security-policy <
> dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org> wrote:
>
> > The practice of revoking non-issued certificates would
Bonjour,
Le vendredi 20 septembre 2019 22:20:02 UTC+2, Curt Spann a écrit :
[...]
> My interpretation is a “revoked” OCSP response should be used in the
> following conditions:
[...]
> 2. When the OCSP request contains an issuerNameHash and issuerKeyHash for
> which the OCSP responder IS authori
On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 5:06 AM Ryan Sleevi wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 2:36 AM Clint Wilson wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 6:29 PM Ryan Sleevi via dev-security-policy <
>> dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org> wrote:
>>
>> Agreed especially with the final paragraph here.
>> Apolo
4 matches
Mail list logo