<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=iso-2022-jp"><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;}
@font-face
{font-family:Aptos;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EstiloCorreo19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;
mso-ligatures:none;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:70.85pt 3.0cm 70.85pt 3.0cm;}
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=ES link=blue vlink=purple style='word-wrap:break-word'><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>I don$B!-(Bt have any issue to discuss this at the forum plenary but the main difference between the TLS and the other cert types is the accountability these have because being in the CT logs and anyone can check/review. But, go ahead.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>De:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> Public <public-bounces@cabforum.org> <b>En nombre de </b>Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) via Public<br><b>Enviado el:</b> martes, 14 de mayo de 2024 17:28<br><b>Para:</b> Ben Wilson <bwilson@mozilla.com><br><b>CC:</b> CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public@cabforum.org><br><b>Asunto:</b> Re: [cabfpub] Bergamo F2F Agenda Item<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div style='border:solid black 1.0pt;padding:2.0pt 2.0pt 2.0pt 2.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:12.0pt;background:#FAFA03'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'>CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>On 14/5/2024 6:08 $B&L(B.$B&L(B., Ben Wilson wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Hi Dimitris, <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>There appears to be an open slot on the F2F agenda - Wed. May 29th at 9:05 a.m. I was thinking we could use that time to discuss revocation timelines and balancing the security provided by revocation with the security/stability needed to support critical infrastructure. In other words, we could discuss BR section 4.9.1 and concerns about disruption of global/national operations in banking/finance, transportation, government, telecommunications, healthcare, and other key areas where certificate revocation might cause key systems to fail.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Should I put this topic in that open slot on the wiki?<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Thanks,<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Ben<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><br>Hi Ben,<br><br>I think that would be great. I assume you will be leading this session.<br><br>I think it's a great opportunity for CAs with past experience on delayed revocations to share some insight about specific challenges in the sectors you listed, and possibly add some that are missing.<br><br>FYI, public evidence for delayed revocation incidents (open and closed, based on specific tags) is available in <a href="https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbugzilla.mozilla.org%2Fbuglist.cgi%3Ff1%3DOP%26f4%3DCP%26v2%3Dca-compliance%26f2%3Dstatus_whiteboard%26o2%3Dallwordssubstr%26component%3DCA%2520Certificate%2520Compliance%26query_format%3Dadvanced%26list_id%3D17029100%26bug_status%3DNEW%26bug_status%3DASSIGNED%26bug_status%3DREOPENED%26bug_status%3DRESOLVED%26v3%3Ddelayed-revocation%2520leaf-revocation-delay%26resolution%3D---%26resolution%3DFIXED%26resolution%3DINVALID%26resolution%3DWONTFIX%26resolution%3DDUPLICATE%26resolution%3DWORKSFORME%26o3%3Danywordssubstr%26f3%3Dstatus_whiteboard&data=05%7C02%7Cinigo.barreira%40sectigo.com%7C359a894ee455450d700308dc742a7c05%7C0e9c48946caa465d96604b6968b49fb7%7C0%7C0%7C638512973035813492%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ksZzBYz0sq06L0qwEvCZcdOe3UTCuUO5%2F4m8sn%2FIZgw%3D&reserved=0">this link</a>.<br><br>Although you mentioned that this affects the BR section 4.9.1, this topic affects all Working Groups because all the WG BRs have a section 4.9.1 that is pretty much similar with the TLS BRs. With that said, I would like to ask if Members have any objections for discussing this topic as part of the Forum plenary.<br><br><br>Thank you,<br>Dimitris<br>CA/B Forum Chair<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></body></html>