<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-2022-jp"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:DengXian;
panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"\@DengXian";
panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}
@font-face
{font-family:"MS PGothic";
panose-1:2 11 6 0 7 2 5 8 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"\@MS PGothic";}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"MS PGothic",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-language:JA;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.xmsonormal, li.xmsonormal, div.xmsonormal
{mso-style-name:x_msonormal;
margin:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"MS PGothic",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-language:JA;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple style='word-wrap:break-word'><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:ZH-CN'>The issue with invaldityDate is that if you are currently using both invalidityDate and revocationDate per RFC 5280, we are saying that we would require that invalidityDate be used incorrectly. Why? <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:ZH-CN'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:ZH-CN'>I think this ballot should be about providing an RFC exception for revocationDate.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:ZH-CN'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:ZH-CN'>Bruce.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:ZH-CN'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek@digicert.com> <br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, September 22, 2021 11:39 AM<br><b>To:</b> Rob Stradling <rob@sectigo.com>; cscwg-public@cabforum.org; Corey Bonnell <Corey.Bonnell@digicert.com>; Bruce Morton <Bruce.Morton@entrust.com><br><b>Subject:</b> [EXTERNAL] RE: CRL Revocation Date Clarification Pre-Ballot<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>WARNING: This email originated outside of Entrust.<br>DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.<o:p></o:p></p><div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><hr size=2 width="100%" align=center></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>I prefer the former, since it doesn$B!G(Bt appear that any Certificate Consumer has any plans to consume the Invalidity Date, even in the future. And $B!H(Bsubstantial portion$B!I(B is just going to cause arguments $B!D(B it$B!G(Bs better to remain silent the issue until there$B!G(Bs a concrete consumer with actual plans to implement.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Bruce, what$B!G(Bs the concern with having the requirement that the invalidity date, if present, must be the same date? Certificates with two different dates are going to confuse a lot of people, and it seems completely unnecessary to allow them, unless I$B!G(Bm missing a use case, which I very well could be.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>-Tim<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt'><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> Cscwg-public <<a href="mailto:cscwg-public-bounces@cabforum.org">cscwg-public-bounces@cabforum.org</a>> <b>On Behalf Of </b>Rob Stradling via Cscwg-public<br><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, September 21, 2021 11:49 AM<br><b>To:</b> Corey Bonnell <<a href="mailto:Corey.Bonnell@digicert.com">Corey.Bonnell@digicert.com</a>>; <a href="mailto:cscwg-public@cabforum.org">cscwg-public@cabforum.org</a>; Bruce Morton <<a href="mailto:bruce.morton@entrust.com">bruce.morton@entrust.com</a>><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Cscwg-public] CRL Revocation Date Clarification Pre-Ballot<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black;background:white'>I think it's valuable for CABForum documents to explicitly call out deviations from RFC5280, but I'd take a different approach to Bruce's suggestion...</span><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'>In the Server Certificate BRs, "Application of RFC 5280" describes a scenario (Precertificates) where RFC5280 does <u>not</u> apply at all; whereas what I think we're trying to do here is specify that RFC5280 <u>does</u> apply (to CRLs) except for one required deviation (i.e., "revocationDate" MUST match the RFC5280 semantics for Invalidity Date, rather than necessarily be "The date on which the revocation occurred"). Deviation is not "Application", in my view.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'>I think the most similar concept in the Server Certificate BRs is the language about non-critical Name Constraints:<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><i><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'>"Non$B!>(Bcritical Name Constraints are an exception to RFC 5280 (4.2.1.10), however, they MAY be used until</span></i><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><i><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'>the Name Constraints extension is supported by Application Software Suppliers whose software is used by</span></i><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><i><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'>a substantial portion of Relying Parties worldwide."</span></i><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'>The effect of this text is that RFC5280 <u>does</u> apply (to the Name Constraints extension) except for one required deviation (i.e., we permit the extension to be non-critical, at least for now).<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'>How about adding this language to the ballot...<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><i><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'>'Permitting the "revocationDate" to be set earlier than the date on which the revocation occurred is an exception to RFC 5280 (5.1.2.6)."</span></i><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'>Or, if we're hoping that this RFC5280 deviation will be temporary, how about...<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><i><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black;background:white'>'Permitting the "revocationDate" to be set earlier than the date on which the revocation occurred is an exception to RFC 5280 (5.1.2.6); however, this MAY be done until the Invalidity Date extension is supported by Application Software Suppliers whose software is used by a substantial portion of Relying Parties worldwide."</span></i><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black;background:white'>WDYT?</span><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><hr size=2 width="98%" align=center></div><div id=divRplyFwdMsg><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'> Cscwg-public <<a href="mailto:cscwg-public-bounces@cabforum.org">cscwg-public-bounces@cabforum.org</a>> on behalf of Bruce Morton via Cscwg-public <<a href="mailto:cscwg-public@cabforum.org">cscwg-public@cabforum.org</a>><br><b>Sent:</b> 21 September 2021 16:04<br><b>To:</b> Corey Bonnell <<a href="mailto:Corey.Bonnell@digicert.com">Corey.Bonnell@digicert.com</a>>; <a href="mailto:cscwg-public@cabforum.org">cscwg-public@cabforum.org</a> <<a href="mailto:cscwg-public@cabforum.org">cscwg-public@cabforum.org</a>><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Cscwg-public] CRL Revocation Date Clarification Pre-Ballot</span> <o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><div style='border:solid black 1.0pt;padding:2.0pt 2.0pt 2.0pt 2.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:12.0pt;background:#FAFA03'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'>CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=xmsonormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Hi Corey,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=xmsonormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=xmsonormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>I was thinking that we would create a section similar to the BRs called $B!H(BApplication of RFC 5280.$B!I(B We could have text that says, $B!H(BFor the purposes of clarification, the revocationDate MAY be set the same as the invalidityDate, which would mean that the revocationDate may precede the date of issue of earlier CRLs.$B!I(B<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=xmsonormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=xmsonormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>I don$B!G(Bt think that we need to address or change the requirements for invalidityDate as this date is not used by Windows; however, it may be used by other applications per RFC 5280.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=xmsonormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=xmsonormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=xmsonormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Bruce.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=xmsonormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=xmsonormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> Corey Bonnell <<a href="mailto:Corey.Bonnell@digicert.com">Corey.Bonnell@digicert.com</a>> <br><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, September 21, 2021 8:45 AM<br><b>To:</b> Bruce Morton <<a href="mailto:Bruce.Morton@entrust.com">Bruce.Morton@entrust.com</a>>; <a href="mailto:cscwg-public@cabforum.org">cscwg-public@cabforum.org</a><br><b>Subject:</b> [EXTERNAL] RE: CRL Revocation Date Clarification Pre-Ballot<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=xmsonormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=xmsonormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>WARNING: This email originated outside of Entrust.<br>DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.<o:p></o:p></span></p><div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><hr size=1 width="100%" align=center></span></div><p class=xmsonormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Hi Bruce,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=xmsonormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>I interpreted Ian$B!G(Bs message from last week [1] as guidance that all CAs should be using the revocationDate to denote when the Code Signing Certificate is first invalid. Since Windows (Authenticode) does not consume the invalidityDate extension value when making trust decisions, there is a negative security impact when CAs set the invalidityDate and revocationDate in the manner described in RFC 5280. This ballot codifies the guidance Ian shared so that the revocationDate is set uniformly across all CAs.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=xmsonormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=xmsonormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Thanks,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=xmsonormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Corey<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=xmsonormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=xmsonormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>[1] <a href="https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.cabforum.org%2Fpipermail%2Fcscwg-public%2F2021-September%2F000532.html&data=04%7C01%7Crob%40sectigo.com%7C0d12b84938cc4d7ed05208d97d1118a7%7C0e9c48946caa465d96604b6968b49fb7%7C0%7C0%7C637678334657724301%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=0y8EPWbaEx8JjusdPkaCY%2F6AZTmk3mzEJxeQuPv5yhk%3D&reserved=0">https://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/cscwg-public/2021-September/000532.html</a><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=xmsonormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=xmsonormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> Bruce Morton <<a href="mailto:Bruce.Morton@entrust.com">Bruce.Morton@entrust.com</a>> <br><b>Sent:</b> Monday, September 20, 2021 2:31 PM<br><b>To:</b> Corey Bonnell <<a href="mailto:Corey.Bonnell@digicert.com">Corey.Bonnell@digicert.com</a>>; <a href="mailto:cscwg-public@cabforum.org">cscwg-public@cabforum.org</a><br><b>Subject:</b> RE: CRL Revocation Date Clarification Pre-Ballot<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=xmsonormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=xmsonormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Hi Corey,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=xmsonormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=xmsonormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Is there a reason that we cannot allow CAs to continue to use Revocation date and Invalidity date as per RFC 5280?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=xmsonormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=xmsonormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>My assumption is that we were going to allow the Revocation date to be a date earlier than the time the certificate was revoked. I am not seeing how this change would impact the Invalidity date.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=xmsonormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=xmsonormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=xmsonormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Bruce.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=xmsonormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=xmsonormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> Cscwg-public <<a href="mailto:cscwg-public-bounces@cabforum.org">cscwg-public-bounces@cabforum.org</a>> <b>On Behalf Of </b>Corey Bonnell via Cscwg-public<br><b>Sent:</b> Monday, September 20, 2021 12:52 PM<br><b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:cscwg-public@cabforum.org">cscwg-public@cabforum.org</a><br><b>Subject:</b> [EXTERNAL] [Cscwg-public] CRL Revocation Date Clarification Pre-Ballot<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=xmsonormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=xmsonormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>WARNING: This email originated outside of Entrust.<br>DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.<o:p></o:p></span></p><div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><hr size=1 width="100%" align=center></span></div><p class=xmsonormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Hello,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=xmsonormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>As discussed last week, it would be valuable to ensure that there is clarity regarding how revocation/invalidity dates are encoded in CRLs so that relying party software can make the correct trust decisions regarding compromised code. Attached is a small change to 13.2.1 to reflect that the revocationDate CRL entry field shall be used to denote when a certificate is invalid. The proposed language allows for the Invalidity Date CRL entry extension to continue to appear, but the time encoded in it must be the same as the revocationDate for the entry. I don$B!G(Bt believe this causes issues with Windows CRL processing, please let me know if it does and I$B!G(Bll remove the provision.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=xmsonormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=xmsonormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>For reference, here are the two proposed paragraphs to be added to 13.2.1:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=xmsonormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=xmsonormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'>If a Code Signing Certificate is revoked, and the CA later becomes aware of a more appropriate revocation date, then the CA MAY use that revocation date in subsequent CRL entries and OCSP responses for that Code Signing Certificate.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=xmsonormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=xmsonormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'>Effective 2022-02-01, if the CA includes the Invalidity Date CRL entry extension in a CRL entry for a Code Signing Certificate, then the time encoded in the Invalidity Date CRL extension SHALL be equal to the time encoded in the revocationDate field of the CRL entry.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=xmsonormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=xmsonormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Given that the revocation date is potentially security sensitive, I think it$B!G(Bs worthwhile to get this clarified prior to the RFC 3647/Pandoc effort. In addition to comments/questions on the proposed language, we$B!G(Bre looking for two endorsers.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=xmsonormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=xmsonormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Thanks,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=xmsonormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Corey<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=xmsonormal><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Any email and files/attachments transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If this message has been sent to you in error, you must not copy, distribute or disclose of the information it contains. <u>Please notify Entrust immediately</u> and delete the message from your system.</span></i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></body></html>