<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=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><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:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@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><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>All,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>In response to Gerv’s email of 28-Jan-2013 (“[cabfpub] CAB Forum Document Versioning”), and changes related to Ballots 71, 93, 96, and 97, I am preparing a proposed version 1.1.3 of the Baseline Requirements – see attached “Document History” table. Also, to address other comments on that same “Versioning” thread, and also to address BR Issue 33 – Title Pages – “No single place to view effective dates”, I’ve created a table of compliance dates. Please review both tables on the attached page. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>To further address comments about ongoing improvements to the Baseline Requirements, I have two more suggestions: (1) we have room for text on this page that could explain a little about how to comply with post-v.1.0 versions of the BRs, assuming CAs are audited under WebTrust for CAs– SSL Baseline Requirements Audit Criteria, V1.0, or ETSI TS 102 042 V2.3.1; and (2) it will be relatively easy to create a redlined PDF that compares BR v. 1.1.3 to BR v. 1.0, so that anyone looking at a WebTrust or ETSI audit can determine whether any post-BR v1.0 changes are relevant to their consideration.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Ben<o:p></o:p></p></div></body></html>