<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 Jul 10, 2017, at 1:47 PM, Jeremy Rowley via Public <<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org" class="">public@cabforum.org</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;"><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class="">A shorter validity period for responders isn’t painful, but could we have a looser interpretation on hardware? What if delegated responder certs were stored in FIPS 140-2 Level 2 if they were short periods? <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></div></div></div></blockquote><br class=""></div><div>I think this is very reasonable, especially given that many other PKIs use Level 2 for issuing CAs.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Thanks,</div><div>Peter</div></body></html>