<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">On Jan 19, 2016, at 2:57 PM, Ryan Sleevi <<a href="mailto:sleevi@google.com" class="">sleevi@google.com</a>> wrote:<br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Peter Bowen <span dir="ltr" class=""><<a href="mailto:pzb@amzn.com" target="_blank" class="">pzb@amzn.com</a>></span> wrote:<br class=""><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">The BRs contain at least two allowances for “legacy” certificate issuance:<br class="">
<br class="">
6.1.7 (5) allows direct issuance of subscriber certificates from a root CA<br class="">
<br class="">
6.3.2 allows certificates with validity periods longer than 39 months<br class="">
<br class="">
Are these still needed? Are CAs relying upon these exceptions? If not, does it make sense to ballot to remove these from the BRs?<br class=""></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">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. </div></div></div></div>
</div></blockquote><br class=""></div><div>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.</div><br class=""></body></html>