On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Doug Beattie
wrote:
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sle...@google.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, August 18, 2017 10:33 AM
> *To:* Doug Beattie
> *Cc:* CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List
One of the main things that CAs do as part of their business is precisely
helping the customer configure their server to use the product. This is only
one of dozens of misconfiguration issues that arise.
DNSSEC is complex enough in itself. One of the side effects of DNSSEC is that
it will
Hello Everyone,
Thank you for your message. I am currently out of the office. I will be
returning the 28th of August.
For urgent matters, you can contact Nicole Wayland.
Regards,
Denise
___
Public mailing list
Public@cabforum.org
Google will endorse
On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Jeremy Rowley via Public <
public@cabforum.org> wrote:
> Digicert will endorse
>
> On Aug 18, 2017, at 8:46 AM, Gervase Markham via Public <
> public@cabforum.org> wrote:
>
> [Can I get two endorsers for this administrative ballot? -- Gerv]
>
[Can I get two endorsers for this administrative ballot? -- Gerv]
*Ballot XXX: Canonicalise formal name of the Baseline Requirements*
Purpose of Ballot: to make the formal name of the Baseline Requirements
document clear, as use is not currently consistent.
The following motion has been
On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 10:25 AM, Doug Beattie
wrote:
> Hi Kirk and Ryan,
>
>
>
> I think this points out a couple of important changes we should make to
> the BRs:
>
>
>
> 1) We should clarify which fields can’t have just meta data characters.
> The statement is
Hi Kirk and Ryan,
I think this points out a couple of important changes we should make to the BRs:
1) We should clarify which fields can’t have just meta data characters. The
statement is currently ambiguous in 2 ways:
1.1) It’s listed under “Other Subject Attributes” which implies it’s OK in
On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 7:25 AM, Gervase Markham via Public <
public@cabforum.org> wrote:
> Is anyone able to explain why this scenario is at all common? Why would
> the authoritative nameservers for a domain refuse to answer queries, if
> the owner of the domain wanted the domain to work at all?
Hi Kirk,
Your email may be confusing somethings. This is related to Entrust's
issuance of non-BR compliant certificates,
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1390996 , correct? Hopefully
you'll have a chance to reply there, even if to only acknowledge receipt
and that Entrust is
On 02/08/17 23:40, philliph--- via Public wrote:
>> We cannot, however, determine whether the "domain’s zone does not have
>> a DNSSEC validation chain to the ICANN root" because the domain's zone
>> authoritative name servers are refusing to answer our DNS queries.
>>
>> This scenario is
On 02/08/17 23:40, philliph--- via Public wrote:
>> We cannot, however, determine whether the "domain’s zone does not have
>> a DNSSEC validation chain to the ICANN root" because the domain's zone
>> authoritative name servers are refusing to answer our DNS queries.
>>
>> This scenario is
11 matches
Mail list logo