<div dir="ltr">Good point! I'd borrowed the language from 4.9.14, but while that actually is "Not applicable" (because you cannot suspend), you're quite right, it doesn't make sense here.<div><br></div><div>I'm inclined to lean on "No Stipulation" to indicate we've actively considered and aren't making any requirements, but if folks would prefer blank and chime in within the next few hours, I can live with that :)</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 11:56 AM Richard Smith <<a href="mailto:rich@sectigo.com">rich@sectigo.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-US">
<div class="gmail-m_1291778345616872298WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Ryan,<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Should the text in BR 4.9.11 be “No stipulation” rather than “Not applicable”? Or be simply left blank as is the current custom for sections of the BR to which the Forum has not elected to state a requirement?<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Regards,<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Rich<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<div style="border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:none;border-top:1pt solid rgb(225,225,225);padding:3pt 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> Servercert-wg <<a href="mailto:servercert-wg-bounces@cabforum.org" target="_blank">servercert-wg-bounces@cabforum.org</a>>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Ryan Sleevi via Servercert-wg<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, June 16, 2020 5:29 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> CA/B Forum Server Certificate WG Public Discussion List <<a href="mailto:servercert-wg@cabforum.org" target="_blank">servercert-wg@cabforum.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [Servercert-wg] Ballot SC31: Browser Alignment<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div style="border:1pt solid black;padding:2pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:12pt;background:rgb(250,250,3)"><span style="font-size:10pt;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.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">This begins the discussion period for Ballot SC31: Browser Alignment.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Purpose of Ballot:</b><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">As a regular part of Root Program maintenance, and reflecting the independent nature of each Root Programs' needs and requirements, Root Programs have introduced a number of requirements above and beyond those captured in the Baseline Requirements.
For Root Programs, this approach results in a lack of certainty, as the requirements are not independently audited and assessed, unless otherwise provided for. For CAs, this introduces confusion when applying to have the same CA certificate trusted by multiple
Root Programs, as the effective requirements that the CA and certificates need to comply with are the union of the most-restrictive policies.<br>
<br>
The following ballot attempts to resolve this uncertainty for Root Programs, and ambiguity for CAs, by incorporating Root Program-specific requirements that are either effective or will, in the future, be effective.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">This was originally drafted in <a href="https://github.com/sleevi/cabforum-docs/pull/10" target="_blank">
https://github.com/sleevi/cabforum-docs/pull/10</a> , and as a pull request is available at
<a href="https://github.com/cabforum/documents/pull/195" target="_blank">https://github.com/cabforum/documents/pull/195</a><br>
<br>
The full description, and motivation, of each change, along with the effective dates, are available at the above pull request.<br>
<br>
The following motion has been proposed by Ryan Sleevi of Google and endorsed by Clint Wilson of Apple and Mike Reilly of Microsoft.<br>
<br>
<b>--- MOTION BEGINS ---<br>
</b><br>
This ballot modifies "Baseline Requirements for the Issuance and Management of Publicly-Trusted Certificates" ("Baseline Requirements") as follows, based on Version 1.7.0<br>
<br>
MODIFY the Baseline Requirements as defined in the following redline:<br>
<a href="https://github.com/cabforum/documents/compare/d5067bbbfb46906c65e476ef3d55dd3b2c505a09...90a7dfe95d32ae8c76a4fa55c7b038d4928872c6" target="_blank">https://github.com/cabforum/documents/compare/d5067bbbfb46906c65e476ef3d55dd3b2c505a09...90a7dfe95d32ae8c76a4fa55c7b038d4928872c6</a><br>
<br>
This ballot modifies the “Guidelines for the Issuance and Management of Extended Validation Certificates” (“EV Guidelines”) as follows, based on version 1.7.2:<br>
<br>
MODIFY the EV Guidelines as defined in the following redline:<br>
<a href="https://github.com/cabforum/documents/compare/d5067bbbfb46906c65e476ef3d55dd3b2c505a09...90a7dfe95d32ae8c76a4fa55c7b038d4928872c6" target="_blank">https://github.com/cabforum/documents/compare/d5067bbbfb46906c65e476ef3d55dd3b2c505a09...90a7dfe95d32ae8c76a4fa55c7b038d4928872c6</a><br>
<br>
The Chair or Vice-Chair is permitted to update the Relevant Dates of the Baseline Requirements and the EV Guidelines to reflect these changes.<br>
<br>
<b>--- MOTION ENDS ---<br>
</b><br>
This ballot proposes two Final Maintenance Guidelines.<br>
<br>
The procedure for approval of this ballot is as follows:<br>
<br>
Discussion (7+ days)<br>
Start Time: 17-June 2020 01:00 UTC<br>
End Time: 24-June 2020 10:00 UTC<br>
<br>
Vote for approval (7 days)<br>
Start Time: TBD<br>
End Time: TBD<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote></div>