<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;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
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><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>I agree. If the date is omitted, the effective date is immediately then it should be right after the review period ends.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>I don’t see any impact from the change (and 30 v. 60 makes no difference for the particular ballot). My only goal is to clarify the process for future ballots and get everyone on the same page about the impact of including (or omitting dates) in ballots. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><a name="_MailEndCompose"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></a></p><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'></span><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, April 17, 2017 11:22 AM<br><b>To:</b> CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public@cabforum.org><br><b>Cc:</b> Gervase Markham <gerv@mozilla.org>; Patrick Tronnier <Patrick.Tronnier@oati.net>; Jeremy Rowley <jeremy.rowley@digicert.com><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [cabfpub] Require commonName in Root and Intermediate Certificates ballot draft (2)<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, Apr 17, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Jeremy Rowley via Public <<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org" target="_blank">public@cabforum.org</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>Why the sigh? I think we should have a bright-line rule about when the<br>scope/date should be in the proposed ballot vs. when the scope/date must be in<br>the document itself. Otherwise, the objection to including a date in the<br>ballot v. BR text seems arbitrary. If I understand correctly, the accepted<br>rule proposed is:<br><br>1) The only point in time action that matters is certificate issuance;<br>2) If BR change exempts future certificate issuance from a requirement, the<br>requirement date must be specified in the BR language; and<br>3) If the BR change only exempts previously issued certificates, no exception<br>or requirement date should be included in the ballot or BR language.<br><br>A lot of the confusion/conflict originates on a perceived shift in the point<br>of action. Previously, I've generally thought of the point of action of the<br>BRs as the validation of the certificate data. Over the past year, we've<br>clearly moved to certificate issuance being the point of action. This shift is<br>fine, but I think it's worth explicitly stating.<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>I think you're mostly correct there. The only debate is whether #2 is universally required.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>That is, in the absence of an explicit date, the date is effective "immediately", where "immediately" is defined as the completion of the Ballot and the IP review period (meaning there's always at least 30 days of buffer built-in). It's useful to understand what impact that could have, and that's generally consistent with the request for a phase in. Is 30 days phase in not sufficient? Could you explain why, and whether 60 days would be sufficient (30 days following the adoption of the Ballot) <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></body></html>