<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;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@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" style='word-wrap:break-word'><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Correctly specifying effective dates is something we’ve struggled with for a long time, even with simple ballots. In the most commonly used current method, the new version of the document becomes effective on date X, but contains explicit text within the requirements specifying the details of the transition and a future effective date Y. While this is significantly clearer that previous methods, where the effective dates were in the ballots but not the requirements themselves, getting it right is challenging, especially for complicated ballots.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>The intent we are trying to express, however, is simple. Before date Y, use the old profiles. After date Y, use the new profiles. As I’ve stated on previous calls, I don’t think it is particularly useful to spend time or effort on creating a document that specifies both profiles, just for the transition period, and I don’t think it’s necessary to “freeze” the profiles in order to do so. We simply need to state clearly in the requirements exactly what the requirements are.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>So I propose we do exactly that. Have the profiles section say something along the lines of:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>"All certificates issued after YYYYYYYYYYY MUST comply with the appropriate profile listed in Section 7. Certificates issued before that date MAY comply with the previous profiles and requirements (as documented in BR version X.X or later)."<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I don’t care too much about the exact wording, as long as we convey the intent as clearly, concisely, and accurately as possible.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I discussed this privately with a few people, and we discussed a few other options, but we kept coming back to this one as the simplest.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>-Tim<o:p></o:p></p></div></body></html>