[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Name Constraints, was Re: [caops-wg] Re: ca signing policy file
- To: "Frank Siebenlist" <franks@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: Name Constraints, was Re: [caops-wg] Re: ca signing policy file
- From: "Cowles, Robert D." <rdc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 15:51:43 -0700
- Cc: "David Chadwick" <d.w.chadwick@xxxxxxxxxx>, <helm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,"Von Welch" <vwelch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Tony J. Genovese" <tony@xxxxxx>,"CAOPS-WG" <caops-wg@xxxxxxx>, "Olle Mulmo" <mulmo@xxxxxxxxxx>,"Joni Hahkala" <joni.hahkala@xxxxxxx>,"Jules Wolfrat" <wolfrat@xxxxxxx>, "Ron Trompert" <ron@xxxxxxx>
- Delivered-to: grdfm-caops-wg-outgoing@mailbouncer.mcs.anl.gov
- Delivered-to: grdfm-caops-wg@mailbouncer.mcs.anl.gov
- Sender: owner-caops-wg@xxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AcXPfDaf+RSiumkLS3OipbVvgZWAIAAAv5Yg
- Thread-topic: Name Constraints, was Re: [caops-wg] Re: ca signing policy file
OK ... should not[happen] = will definitely (at some point) [happen]
> Careful... I said "should", not "cannot"...
>
> CA's are supposed to "know" not to overstep their issuing boundaries
> through secret handshakes and such.
>
> -Frank.
>> When you say "name collisions", you must be referring to either
>> compromised CAs or errors as name collisions should not occur...