Justin Karneges wrote:
On Friday 15 June 2007 11:03 am, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:Mridul Muralidharan wrote:Justin Karneges wrote:On Thursday 14 June 2007 2:59 pm, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:Would it be appropriate to recommend that client and server developers bundle support for the root certificate under which the XMPP ICA issues domain certificates?The XSF is not in a position to vouch for the trustworthiness of a certificate authority.+1The XSF runs the XMPP Intermediate Certification Authority, so I'd hope we can trust it. We do not run the root CA upon which the XMPP ICA depends.The XSF runs an ICA, but that alone is not enough of a reason for XMPP developers and users to trust it. The reason the XMPP ICA is interesting is because it is under StartCom control, and StartCom is widely trusted. To better understand what I mean, just imagine if the XMPP CA was an independent root CA. The value comes not from the XSF's booming voice, but from StartCom. :)Anyway, there's nothing wrong with having a recommendation, and I see you've already published new versions of the XEP with it. However, it does come off as an advertisement, which is a strange thing to have in a XEP. You could just as well advertise Equifax, I'm sure they have a number of XMPP domain certificates issued too.
The XEP says that developers "should consider" bundling it. That's a pretty weak suggestion and it is in the implementation notes without all-caps conformance language. Use your best judgment about how to proceed.
/psa
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
