[cabf_validation] OrganisationIdentifier mandated by ETSI TSt119 495

[Tim Hollebeek]

It was an aside.  Just for future reference, I don’t think attempting to shut down discussions is useful, so I never do it.

 

-Tim

 

From: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com> 
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2018 3:06 PM
To: Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com>
Cc: Wayne Thayer <wthayer at mozilla.com>; CA/Browser Forum Validation WG List <validation at cabforum.org>; Doug Beattie <doug.beattie at globalsign.com>; Jeremy Rowley <jeremy.rowley at digicert.com>
Subject: Re: [cabf_validation] OrganisationIdentifier mandated by ETSI TSt119 495

 

 

On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 5:06 PM Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com <mailto:tim.hollebeek at digicert.com> > wrote:

No, that would be a misinterpretation.  I was commenting in the context of how we should add new fields like LEI or OrganisationIdentifier.

 

I agree with Doug (and you?) that the current BR situation is a mess and that there are lots of things that should probably be clarified.  We can discuss it on the next Validation call.

 

This thread has too many issues in it.

 

It's unclear if your intent was to shut down discussion, or whether you were merely making an aside. Regardless of either, could you perhaps summarize what you view the issues as, as you see them? Like Wayne, I have trouble understanding your reply and goals, and I think it'd be extremely helpful for the discussion to provide such a summary, as you see it. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/attachments/20181127/c9514727/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/20181127/c9514727/attachment-0001.p7s>