time goes on. As with all specifications,
adoption remains the key challenge, but I believe this draft offers a
practical solution to these issues without disrupting existing systems.
Ryan Hurst
On Wed, Jan 15, 2025 at 8:00 AM Joseph Salowey wrote:
> At the trust tussle Interim in October we
For what it is worth, agree with Sophie, trust anchor negation is needed
regardless of PQC, and tying the two topics together artificially would not
make either problem domain easier to solve.
Ryan
On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 3:28 PM Sophie Schmieg wrote:
> I don't think trust anchor negotiation ne
mitigating pervasive monitoring and has
nothing to do with the technical details of the client trust store and not
Trust Expressions.
Ryan Hurst
On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 12:25 PM Dennis Jackson wrote:
> On 29/06/2024 00:14, David Benjamin wrote:
>
> > We have published a second, re
properties of the certificate and keys being used for the
cross-signing.
On Mon, May 27, 2024 at 9:51 AM Dennis Jackson
wrote:
> Hi Ryan,
>
> On 27/05/2024 16:39, Ryan Hurst wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> Moreover, there's the liability issue: a CA that cross-signs another CA
igning are significant and often underappreciated in these
discussions.
This is reality is why new CAs are often forced to offer weaker ubiquity
than the older CAs. As someone who has both provided said cross-signs and
received them I really don't see them as the silver bullet others seem to
in thi
ed by server
operators today. While I support continued discussion, I am supportive of
this proposal.
Ryan Hurst
On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 10:40 AM Watson Ladd wrote:
> On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 12:42 PM David Benjamin
> wrote:
>
> >
> > Of course, whether this property (whether
