Does that mean you'll be withdrawing the proposal to reuse data, which is a new provision?
I hope you can understand the desire here to find an equitable balance that works for all parties. We're putting the ecosystem at risk due to some CAs poor security practices. Being transparent about that does not seem an unreasonable request, particularly if it can help ensure relying parties know how to differentiate the certificates from those that have invested in modern security practices. On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 8:59 PM, Kirk Hall <[email protected]> wrote: > We need to adopt this ballot without new provisions. > > > > *From:* Ryan Sleevi [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Wednesday, May 17, 2017 3:54 PM > *To:* CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <[email protected]> > *Cc:* Kirk Hall <[email protected]> > *Subject:* [EXTERNAL]Re: [cabfpub] Preballot - Revised Ballot 190 > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 6:23 PM, Kirk Hall via Public <[email protected]> > wrote: > > +1 > > > > +1 to what? Doug asked questions. >
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
