[cabf_validation] Using 3.2.2.4.2/.3 for future domains

[Tim Hollebeek]

Oh, it certainly is possible to meaningfully do things about it.  They just might result in validation requirements that look a lot different from today’s validation requirements.  Given that we’ve currently embarked on a process of evaluating our current validation requirements and possibly making them very different, this would seem to be a good time to think about this.

 

So I don’t think your argument that many of the current validation methods can be used to do this is a reasonable argument for why we can’t have a discussion about it.

 

-Tim

 

 

These sorts of things turn that on their head.  That may be fine, but we should look at them with a critical eye and see if they do what we want.  The answer may be yes.  I’m still thinking them through.

 

Right, and I'm disagreeing with that framing for how to approach it. If we're going to Have Opinions about it, we first have to explore whether it's even possible to meaningfully do anything about it. If not, it's a lot of handwringing and pearl-clasping for nothing.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/attachments/20180321/1e261bba/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4940 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/attachments/20180321/1e261bba/attachment-0001.p7s>