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 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."
On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 3:30 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
> On 13/01/17 01:56, Ryan Sleevi wrote:
>> Notably, 1.3.7 also has IP encumbrances - and uncertainty - the same
>> as 1.4.1, so presumably, Mozilla is OK with having encumbered methods
>> included. Considering some of these
On 13/01/17 01:56, Ryan Sleevi wrote:
> Notably, 1.3.7 also has IP encumbrances - and uncertainty - the same
> as 1.4.1, so presumably, Mozilla is OK with having encumbered methods
> included. Considering some of these exclusions have existed since the
> BR's adoption, that doesn't seem an
Gerv,
I'd like to push a little and suggest that the IP issues are not a
significant reason for Mozilla not to formalize on 1.4.1 (e.g. with
169 included)
Notably, 1.3.7 also has IP encumbrances - and uncertainty - the same
as 1.4.1, so presumably, Mozilla is OK with having encumbered methods
I agree with this approach. Nothing of note was include after the domain
validation passed so making 1.3.7 the effective version makes sense.
-Original Message-
From: dev-security-policy
[mailto:dev-security-policy-bounces+jeremy.rowley=digicert.com@lists.mozilla
.org] On Behalf Of
6 matches
Mail list logo