From owner-svn-ports-head@FreeBSD.ORG Thu May 21 04:20:46 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-ports-head@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A0D0B457 for ; Thu, 21 May 2015 04:20:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206c::16:87]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6B59618D0 for ; Thu, 21 May 2015 04:20:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id t4L4KkUu068145 for ; Thu, 21 May 2015 04:20:46 GMT (envelope-from bdrewery@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from bdrewery@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.9/8.14.9/Submit) id t4L4KkLX068142 for svn-ports-head@FreeBSD.org; Thu, 21 May 2015 04:20:46 GMT (envelope-from bdrewery) Received: (qmail 74838 invoked from network); 20 May 2015 23:20:44 -0500 Received: from unknown (HELO blah) (freebsd@shatow.net@10.10.1.90) by sweb.xzibition.com with ESMTPA; 20 May 2015 23:20:44 -0500 Message-ID: <555D5D1C.6000100@FreeBSD.org> Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 23:20:44 -0500 From: Bryan Drewery Organization: FreeBSD User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Benjamin Kaduk CC: koobs@FreeBSD.org, ports-committers@FreeBSD.org, svn-ports-all@FreeBSD.org, svn-ports-head@FreeBSD.org, Baptiste Daroussin Subject: Re: svn commit: r386873 - head/security/ca_root_nss/files References: <201505201808.t4KI8ajp012568@svn.freebsd.org> <555D4216.5060303@FreeBSD.org> <555D5504.3030106@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the ports tree for head List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 04:20:46 -0000 On 5/20/15 10:58 PM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > On Wed, 20 May 2015, Bryan Drewery wrote: > >> On 5/20/15 9:25 PM, Kubilay Kocak wrote: >>> On 21/05/2015 4:08 AM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: >>>> Author: bjk (doc committer) >>>> Date: Wed May 20 18:08:35 2015 >>>> New Revision: 386873 >>>> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/386873 >>>> >>>> Log: >>>> Fix spelling of "certification authority" >>>> >>>> Approved by: portmgr (bapt), bapt (ports committer) >>>> >>>> Modified: >>>> head/security/ca_root_nss/files/pkg-message.in >>>> >>> >>>> -FreeBSD does not, and can not warrant that the certificate authorities >>>> +FreeBSD does not, and can not warrant that the certification authorities >>>> whose certificates are included in this package have in any way been >>>> audited for trustworthiness or RFC 3647 compliance. >>> >>> FWIW, I intended certificate not certification, so not a spelling mistake. >>> >>> Though both are proper, I would asser the former feels more canonical: >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certificate_authority >>> >>> Not a biggy, just wanted to mention it. >>> >> >> I agree, Certificate seems more proper. Asking google shows far more hits for >> Certificate. > > This pkg-message is in the context of the Web PKI, and TLS. TLS is an > IETF standard; IETF documents are published as RFCs, the official > repository of which is hosted by the RFC Editor. > > The RFC Editor maintains a list of expansions of abbreviations: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-style-guide/abbrev.expansion.txt You mean like the actual TLS 1.2 RFC 5246? https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5246 It has many hits for Certificate Authority and 0 for Certification Authority. > > In this context, I believe it is quite unambiguous that CA expands to > "certification authority", and a great deal of traffic on the IETF mailing > lists supports the lack of ambiguity. > > Apparently there is ambiguity in the minds of others (yourselves), though; > it probably would have been better to have this discussion prior to the > commit. I can revert it during the discussion, if you wish. > > -Ben > -- Regards, Bryan Drewery