<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=us-ascii"><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:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@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="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>I would potentially like to fix “Application Software Suppliers”, and replace it with a better term, if others are interested. One possibility is to use Certificate Consumers, to more closely align with the Bylaws.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>-Tim<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt'><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b>From:</b> Public <public-bounces@cabforum.org> <b>On Behalf Of </b>Dean Coclin via Public<br><b>Sent:</b> Friday, August 7, 2020 3:06 PM<br><b>To:</b> CABforum1 <public@cabforum.org><br><b>Subject:</b> [cabfpub] Requirements language cleanup<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>As mentioned on today’s call, our team went through the CA/B Forum Baseline Requirements, EV Guidelines and Code Signing Guidelines to review for names which are being deprecated by the industry. The number found were very minor:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>In the EV Guidelines, the following text was found: “Denied Lists and Other Legal Black Lists” in Pg. iii Table of Contents 11.12.2 Black Lists; Pg. 30 11.12.2. Suggest changing to “Block Lists”.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>In the EV Code Signing Guidelines, the following text was found: “In addition to checking revocation status, where practical, platforms should consult blacklists of suspect software”. Suggest changing to “blocklist”. This can be taken up by the code signing WG.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>In the TLS Baseline Requirements, there is reference to standard email addresses (page 19) used to contact parties for domain validation (i.e. webmaster, hostmaster, postmaster). However, I’m assuming these cannot be changed.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I know there are some cleanup ballots either planned or underway and perhaps these can be included there.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Dean Coclin<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>DigiCert<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></body></html>