svn commit: r386873 - head/security/ca_root_nss/files

[Benjamin Kaduk]

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

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