<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=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (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:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",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.hoenzb
{mso-style-name:hoenzb;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.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><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>I don’t recall that as being the case. I think the discussion stalled because certain national programs used the anyEKU and their national policies conflicted with the BRs. I know we all agreed serverAuth ought to be included. The question was on no EKU and anyEKU as they are both technically server certs. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><a name="_MailEndCompose"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></a></p><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'> Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi@google.com] <br><b>Sent:</b> Monday, January 18, 2016 11:53 AM<br><b>To:</b> Rick Andrews<br><b>Cc:</b> Jeremy Rowley; Peter Bowen; Doug Beattie; public@cabforum.org<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [cabfpub] Misissuance of certificates<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Rick Andrews <<a href="mailto:Rick_Andrews@symantec.com" target="_blank">Rick_Andrews@symantec.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in'><p class=MsoNormal>That discussion was challenging because each browser had different behavior regarding what it accepted as an SSL cert. I had captured some of the differences here: <a href="https://cabforum.org/wiki/Browser%20Behavior" target="_blank">https://cabforum.org/wiki/Browser%20Behavior</a>, and that's likely out of date.<br><span style='color:#888888'><br><span class=hoenzb>-Rick</span></span><o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>I don't see any reason for there to be challenge based on that. It's a question of what the accepted definition of "in scope" is. Presumably, browsers will want what they accept as "in scope", but that wasn't what stalled the conversation at all - it was CAs wanting stuff that browsers ALL accepted as "out of scope". <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></body></html>