Should *http://band.example.com and playground*.example.net be allowed as FQDNs in certificates?
@mik235 @pzb @sleevi_ I read it the same way as Peter. Regardless, I removed support for *http://x.example.com and x*.example.com from Fx.
-
-
@BRIAN_____@mik235@pzb Right, as we did in Chrome. So *shrug* -
@sleevi_@BRIAN_____@pzb so the CAs may choose to sign them, but the customer will have a useless certificate -
-
@BRIAN_____@mik235@sleevi_ while you are changing the BRs, how about requiring only one Attribute per RelativeDistinguishedName? -
@pzb@BRIAN_____@mik235 Dude, CAs can't even follow basic ASN.1 rules. Now you're going to go all crazy and ask for no stupidity?! -
@pzb@BRIAN_____@mik235 I mean, it's totally valid to supply multiple attributes per RDN if they're equivalent. I was more talking bout.. -
@sleevi_@BRIAN_____@mik235 are you suggesting that InfoNotary cert is correct? - 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.