<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=utf-8">
<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:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.gmail-il
{mso-style-name:gmail-il;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
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-IN" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">eMudhra votes YES to SC31v3.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Regards,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Vijay<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> Servercert-wg <servercert-wg-bounces@cabforum.org>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Ryan Sleevi via Servercert-wg<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 09 July 2020 22:30<br>
<b>To:</b> CA/B Forum Server Certificate WG Public Discussion List <servercert-wg@cabforum.org><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [Servercert-wg] VOTING BEGINS: Ballot SC31v3: Browser Alignment<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">This begins the voting period for Ballot <span class="gmail-il">SC31v3</span>: Browser Alignment<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:black">Purpose of Ballot:</span></b><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">This was originally drafted in </span><a href="https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fsleevi%2Fcabforum-docs%2Fpull%2F10&data=02%7C01%7Cvijay%40emudhra.com%7C80da04993bb2436a18a608d82429bad3%7C11219a1f9e6240568ee2d013be03405f%7C0%7C0%7C637299108951664477&sdata=SX8laM4Qz1ftp%2FDb9s1Z%2BJwCN%2B6NmtWmCbUR0R0Nda0%3D&reserved=0" target="_blank">https://github.com/sleevi/cabforum-docs/pull/10</a><span style="color:black"> ,
and as a pull request is available at </span><a href="https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fcabforum%2Fdocuments%2Fpull%2F195&data=02%7C01%7Cvijay%40emudhra.com%7C80da04993bb2436a18a608d82429bad3%7C11219a1f9e6240568ee2d013be03405f%7C0%7C0%7C637299108951669463&sdata=4L3OEVOMEyGPjZAkhQvcaRgmOvy8QgxynNsI1LIA3%2Fg%3D&reserved=0" target="_blank">https://github.com/cabforum/documents/pull/195</a><span style="color:black"><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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">The changes between SC31v1 and SC31v2 can be viewed at <a href="https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fcabforum%2Fdocuments%2Fcompare%2F90a7dfe95d32ae8c76a4fa55c7b038d4928872c6...1bb3be897213b21d15b837befa885b0ba34bfd3d&data=02%7C01%7Cvijay%40emudhra.com%7C80da04993bb2436a18a608d82429bad3%7C11219a1f9e6240568ee2d013be03405f%7C0%7C0%7C637299108951674455&sdata=XdssKCAy9wEesNp87M1%2F%2Ffmt1FRzBJJcBb9wVz7Dv3A%3D&reserved=0" target="_blank">https://github.com/cabforum/documents/compare/90a7dfe95d32ae8c76a4fa55c7b038d4928872c6...1bb3be897213b21d15b837befa885b0ba34bfd3d</a> .
This corrects "Not applicable" to "No stipulation", updates the formatting/markup for Pandoc and provides additional example text to the effective date table for the Chair or Vice-Chair.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">The changes between SC31v2 and <span class="gmail-il">SC31v3</span> can be viewed at<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="color:black"><a href="https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fcabforum%2Fdocuments%2Fcompare%2F1bb3be897213b21d15b837befa885b0ba34bfd3d...a9a7814da2328c3d3d54d8355eff6fe398354af8&data=02%7C01%7Cvijay%40emudhra.com%7C80da04993bb2436a18a608d82429bad3%7C11219a1f9e6240568ee2d013be03405f%7C0%7C0%7C637299108951679446&sdata=D9Bg3CKYccWuFpELWSxVMHxqfpLUjCmfD3cmu22rh4Q%3D&reserved=0" target="_blank">https://github.com/cabforum/documents/compare/1bb3be897213b21d15b837befa885b0ba34bfd3d...a9a7814da2328c3d3d54d8355eff6fe398354af8</a> .
This addresses an issue with certificate suspension for pre-existing, non-TLS certificates from TLS-capable subordinate CAs, and attempts to clarify the expectations around the use of CRL reason codes by requiring they be documented in the CA's CP/CPS. This
also shuffles a requirement already present in the BRs and the RFCs, regarding Delegated Responders being conflated with TLS-capable CAs, into the "Cleanup and Clarification" ballot.<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://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fcabforum%2Fdocuments%2Fcompare%2Fd5067bbbfb46906c65e476ef3d55dd3b2c505a09...a9a7814da2328c3d3d54d8355eff6fe398354af8&data=02%7C01%7Cvijay%40emudhra.com%7C80da04993bb2436a18a608d82429bad3%7C11219a1f9e6240568ee2d013be03405f%7C0%7C0%7C637299108951679446&sdata=YpsjuFcLYaEQ5Y3%2BYphBKYb%2B3wK2yqI89u3zHMIdIuo%3D&reserved=0" target="_blank">https://github.com/cabforum/documents/compare/d5067bbbfb46906c65e476ef3d55dd3b2c505a09...a9a7814da2328c3d3d54d8355eff6fe398354af8</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://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fcabforum%2Fdocuments%2Fcompare%2Fd5067bbbfb46906c65e476ef3d55dd3b2c505a09...a9a7814da2328c3d3d54d8355eff6fe398354af8&data=02%7C01%7Cvijay%40emudhra.com%7C80da04993bb2436a18a608d82429bad3%7C11219a1f9e6240568ee2d013be03405f%7C0%7C0%7C637299108951684436&sdata=t4B190IXlSULcGR0cP8Lgpx7QdsBaCaa7jMSCYfkpwk%3D&reserved=0" target="_blank">https://github.com/cabforum/documents/compare/d5067bbbfb46906c65e476ef3d55dd3b2c505a09...a9a7814da2328c3d3d54d8355eff6fe398354af8</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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">The procedure for approval of this ballot is as follows:<br>
<br>
Discussion (7+ days)<br>
Start Time: 2-July 2020 00:00 UTC<br>
End Time: after 9-July 2020 00:00 UTC<br>
<br>
Vote for approval (7 days)<br>
Start Time: 9-July 2020 17:00 UTC<br>
End Time: 16-July 2020 17:00 UTC<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>