<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.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.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><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>I’m happy to make the motion or endorse removal of these exceptions. <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><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'> public-bounces@cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Peter Bowen<br><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, January 19, 2016 4:09 PM<br><b>To:</b> Ryan Sleevi<br><b>Cc:</b> CABFPub<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [cabfpub] Sunset for exceptions?<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>On Jan 19, 2016, at 2:57 PM, Ryan Sleevi <<a href="mailto:sleevi@google.com">sleevi@google.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Peter Bowen <<a href="mailto:pzb@amzn.com" target="_blank">pzb@amzn.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>The BRs contain at least two allowances for “legacy” certificate issuance:<br><br>6.1.7 (5) allows direct issuance of subscriber certificates from a root CA<br><br>6.3.2 allows certificates with validity periods longer than 39 months<br><br>Are these still needed? Are CAs relying upon these exceptions? If not, does it make sense to ballot to remove these from the BRs?<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>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. <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>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.<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>