<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=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On 4 May 2017, at 12:30 pm, Ryan Sleevi via Public <<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org" class="">public@cabforum.org</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class="">Kirk raised that, but it does not seem to be a founded concern.<br class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">1) That requirement applies to all certificates issued against the current BRs</div><div class="">2) The BRs do not retroactively invalidate - or, especially in the case of Ballot 197 - approve - certificate issuance.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">A CA has always and only been obligated to state compliance with the in-force BRs with respect to issuance and its activities.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>In this context, saying the BRs apply to ‘all certificates issued’ might mean that you could no longer issue a certificate against a root without a common name, and so cannot renew any sub-CAs.</div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 3:27 PM, Steve Medin via Public <span dir="ltr" class=""><<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org" target="_blank" class="">public@cabforum.org</a>></span> wrote:<br class=""><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="white" lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple" class="">
<div class="m_-6447053817377038652WordSection1"><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d" class="">Gerv, could we also request explicit forward-looking language? Kirk raised the concern about whether this applies to existing roots and intermediates. We have a root issued in 1997 that does not have a common
name. Some interpretations have been discussed, but we would strongly prefer that this be written into this change for clear future interpretations.<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d" class=""><u class=""></u> <u class=""></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d" class="">If I may:<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d" class=""><u class=""></u> <u class=""></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d" class="">7.1.4.3. Subject Information – Root Certificates and Subordinate CA Certificates<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d" class="">When issuing a Root Certificate or Subordinate CA Certificate, the CA represents that it followed the procedure set forth in its Certificate Policy and/or Certification Practice Statement to verify that, as of
the Certificate’s issuance date, all of the Subject Information was accurate and included the content required by this section.</span></p></div></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div></body></html>