#144: Need to specify how the CA requirements in 12.3 are to be met Changes (by [email protected]):
* owner: [email protected] => [email protected] Comment: Good point about specifying behaviour of CAs - the definition of a 'single entity' is unclear and anyway, the purpose of this section is to point out the dangers of over-redaction. It is hard to define what over-redaction is here, so my proposal (after talking to Rob about it) is to point out to the PSL as an example of domains for which redacted precertificates would be 'overly-redacted' and make this section more informative, less prescriptive. -- --------------------------+------------------------------- Reporter: [email protected] | Owner: [email protected] Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: rfc6962-bis | Version: Severity: - | Resolution: Keywords: | --------------------------+------------------------------- Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/144#comment:1> trans <https://tools.ietf.org/trans/> _______________________________________________ Trans mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
