I think it will be 162 unless Ben has reserved that for one of the Policy ballots.
Ben? Thanks Dean From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Peter Bowen Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2016 7:15 AM To: CABFPub <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Sunset for exceptions? I think more than enough full members have agreed to propose and endorse: Richard Barnes of Mozilla Eddy Nigg of StartCom Jeremy Rowley of DigiCert Adriano Santoni of Actalis Ryan Sleevi of Google Can whoever doles out ballot numbers please assign a number and can the review period please be initiated? Thanks, Peter On Jan 19, 2016, at 10:27 PM, Peter Bowen <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: How about this? Ballot XXX - Sunset of exceptions The following motion has been proposed by ______________ of _________ and endorsed by __________ of _________ and _________ of _________. -----BEGIN MOTION----- 1) Modify section 6.1.7 of the Baseline Requirements to add items 5(f) and 5(g) which read: f. The CA signs the Subscriber Certificate on or before June 30, 2016 g. The notBefore field in the Subscriber Certificate has a date on or before June 30, 2016 2) Modify section 6.3.2 of the Baseline Requirements to replace the words "Beyond 1 April 2015" with the words "Until 30 June 2016" -----END MOTION----- On Jan 19, 2016, at 10:06 PM, Eddy Nigg <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: Dito. On 01/20/2016 01:25 AM, Jeremy Rowley wrote: I'm happy to make the motion or endorse removal of these exceptions. From: <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] [ <mailto:[email protected]> mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Peter Bowen Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2016 4:09 PM To: Ryan Sleevi Cc: CABFPub Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Sunset for exceptions? On Jan 19, 2016, at 2:57 PM, Ryan Sleevi < <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]> wrote: On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Peter Bowen < <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]> wrote: The BRs contain at least two allowances for "legacy" certificate issuance: 6.1.7 (5) allows direct issuance of subscriber certificates from a root CA 6.3.2 allows certificates with validity periods longer than 39 months Are these still needed? Are CAs relying upon these exceptions? If not, does it make sense to ballot to remove these from the BRs? Peter, I'd be happy to support a ballot if you want to propose one. That tends to be the only way to get timely responses - the discussion period of the ballot. As an Associate Member, I cannot propose ballots. Only those who have a full period-of-time audit can propose ballots. Or at least that is my read of the bylaws. _______________________________________________ Public mailing list <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] <https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public -- Regards Signer: Eddy Nigg, COO/CTO <http://www.startcom.org/> StartCom Ltd. XMPP: <xmpp:[email protected]> [email protected] Blog: <http://blog.startcom.org/> Join the Revolution! Twitter: <http://twitter.com/eddy_nigg> Follow Me _______________________________________________ Public mailing list <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] <https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public _______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
