4 ms·
Worth noting that the rule they broke has only been in effect for three days (https://cabforum.org/2017/03/08/ballot-187-make-caa-checking-mandatory/ https://ca
by ameliaquining 9y ago
Worth noting that the rule they broke has only been in effect for three days (https://cabforum.org/2017/03/08/ballot-187-make-caa-checking-mandatory/ https://cabforum.org/2017/03/08/ballot-187-make-caa-checking...). This might cause the CAB to go a bit easier on them.
- koolba 9y agoThey also voted "yes" to the proposal and had 6 months to implement it.
- Panino 9y agoExactly. For some contrast: I use tinydns, which doesn't natively support CAA records. But I wanted them so I read the CAA spec and wrote a little tool to add support for these records using the generic record format. And I'm not even a programmer! (I can write a little code, nothing serious, and nobody would hire me for it.) And yet with all of Comodo's resources, they couldn't get this done? I can't take them seriously.
- geofft 9y agoI'd assume that Comodo wrote the code, tested the code, deployed the code, and forgot to flip the switch to actually enable it in production.
- zokier 9y agoAccording to the mail, they have claimed to check CAA much earlier, so it's not just CAB guidelines they have broken, but their own word, which can be seen as worse.