This isn't saying anything not already covered in the material I referenced in my comment—although it does say it less precisely, so I'd argue on those grounds that all things considered this comment need not have been posted...

(In any case, I'm totally mystified about why my own comment that includes that link and corrects the untrue statement about it not being possible possible to get certificates for IPs was deemed to offend someone's sensibilities. Surely the offense, if there is one, is in the comment that makes an outright, verifiably untrue claim?)