Comodo fails to check CAA records
Comodo is communicating actively in the bug, in the email discussion, and proactively CC&#x27;d the original reporter on the bug that was filed about this without being asked to do so.<p>The general rule in Operations work is tolerance. You don&#x27;t fire someone for making a mistake, you fire them for lying about the mistake, for refusing to avoid mistake-prone behaviors, and other problem of that sort.<p>Applying that same principle to CA operations, why on earth should Comodo be &quot;fired&quot; as a CA for this? They&#x27;re actively working to solve it, they&#x27;re responsive, and the agreements they operate under will compel a post-mortem into existence if only to meet the terms of their next CA audit.<p>If, after investigation, they are found to be willfully violating policy, knowingly lying about CAA support, fail to produce an acceptable post-mortem, and&#x2F;or fail their next CA audit, then <i>of course</i> they should be at risk of direct sanctions - not just a verbal reprimand.<p>So if your initial response to this issue is &quot;Comodo should be fired&quot;, remember that in Operations culture that specific response &quot;X should be fired&quot; is a <i>harmful</i> response to a zero-day report of an incident, and many Operations teams would fire anyone who called for a firing in response to a fresh incident, in order to protect others from that harmful posture.