<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><div>Hi Moudrick, <br/>
<br/>
As with the BRs, only 411-1 was added. I think in a previous F2F, it was mentioned that some CAs that don't issue ssl/tls certificates, still want to be audited against the NSRs and the previous ETSI TS standards. That's why it is inclusive.<br/>
<br/>
IMO, adding 411-2 doesn't offer much because it is based on 411-1 anyway, and 411-1 describes the core CA security operations. <br/>
<br/>
<br/>
DZ. <br/><br/>-----Original Message-----<br/>From: "Moudrick M. Dadashov via Public" <public@cabforum.org><br/>To: Ben Wilson <ben.wilson@digicert.com>, CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public@cabforum.org><br/>Sent: Sun, 13 Aug 2017 6:49<br/>Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 210: Misc. Changes to the Network and Certificate System Security Requirements<br/><br/></div>
<font face="Cambria">Hi Ben,<br>
<br>
should we replace </font><font face="Cambria"><font
face="Cambria">ETSI TS 101 456 and </font></font><font
face="Cambria"><font face="Cambria">ETSI TS 102 042 with </font>ETSI
EN 319 411-2 and ETSI EN 319 411-3?<br>
(see
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://cabforum.org/etsi/#Qualified-Certificates---EN-319-411-2-replaces-TS-101-456">https://cabforum.org/etsi/#Qualified-Certificates---EN-319-411-2-replaces-TS-101-456</a>).<br>
</font><br>
Thanks,<br>
M.D.<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/13/2017 6:30 AM, Ben Wilson via
Public wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:3ae938ffb70b4084a74a1b195e912fc9@EX2.corp.digicert.com"
type="cite">ETSI TS 101 456</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>