Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Don't discuss/promise revocation information in certificates in Section 2.2 #239

Open
bdaehlie opened this issue Oct 18, 2024 · 0 comments · May be fixed by #241
Open

Don't discuss/promise revocation information in certificates in Section 2.2 #239

bdaehlie opened this issue Oct 18, 2024 · 0 comments · May be fixed by #241
Assignees
@aarongable

Comments

@bdaehlie
Copy link
Contributor

Section 2.2 contains the following text:

"ISRG certificates contain URLs to locations where certificate-related information is published, including revocation information via OCSP and/or CRLs."

This could be interpreted as a promise to include at least one reference to revocation information in all of our certificates. This is something we could forget to remove if, for example, we start issuing short-lived certs that don't include revocation information.

Discussing revocation in this section is unnecessary, we should just remove it now so we don't get tripped up on it later.
aarongable added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 18, 2024
@aarongable
Simplify section 2.1 and 2.2
b71741e 
- Move references to both the policy/legal repository and the certificate repository into Section 2.2, matching the BRs
- Replace description of revocation advertisement with cross-reference

Fixes #239
@aarongable aarongable linked a pull request Oct 18, 2024 that will close this issue
Open
@aarongable aarongable self-assigned this Oct 18, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@aarongable aarongable

Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

Simplify section 2.1 and 2.2 letsencrypt/cp-cps
2 participants
@bdaehlie @aarongable