<div dir="ltr"><b style="font-weight:normal" id="gmail-docs-internal-guid-f035b864-7fff-cbe6-bb1c-7e892c9a65c7"><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:12pt;margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:700;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">Validation Subcommittee – 22 September 2022</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">Attendees: Aaron Poulsen (Amazon), Andrea Holland (SecureTrust), Aneta Wojtczak-Iwanicka (Microsoft), Ben Wilson (Mozilla), Bruce Morton (Entrust), Chris Clements (Google), Clint Wilson (Apple), Corey Bonnell (Digicert), Corey Rasmussen (OATI), Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA), Dustin Hollenback (Microsoft), Joanna Fox (TrustCor Systems), Johnny Reading (GoDaddy), Kiran Tummala (Microsoft), Martijn Katerbarg (Sectigo), Michelle Coon (OATI), Rebecca Kelley (Apple), Ryan Dickson (Google), Tim Hollebeek (Digicert), Tobias Josefowitz (Opera Software AS), Trevoli Ponds-White (Amazon), Wayne Thayer (Fastly)</span></p><br><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">Corey Bonnell read the antitrust statement.</span></p><br><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">The minutes from the 8-September meeting were approved.</span></p><br><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">Agenda</span></p><ul style="margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px"><li dir="ltr" style="list-style-type:disc;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre"><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt" role="presentation"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">Certificate profiles ballot</span></p></li><li dir="ltr" style="list-style-type:disc;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre"><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt" role="presentation"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">Review of the BRs for the use of the term “Applicant”</span></p></li></ul><br><ol style="margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px"><li dir="ltr" style="list-style-type:decimal;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre"><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt" role="presentation"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">Review of PR that adds specification for EV attributes - <a href="https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/pull/391">https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/pull/391</a></span></p></li></ol><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-left:36pt;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">Corey said that without specifying EV specific attributes, the encoding isn’t specified, so he added a section containing those attributes. it does not enforce ordering, but does specify encoding and maximum length.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-left:36pt;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">Tim Hollebeek said that this is a big improvement, but the relative ordering requirement in the sentence above the table is subtle</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-left:36pt;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">Corey said that he and Tim will work together to improve the clarity of the ordering requirement.</span></p><br><ol style="margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px" start="2"><li dir="ltr" style="list-style-type:decimal;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre"><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt" role="presentation"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">Integrating Ryan Sleevi’s table improvements</span></p></li></ol><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-left:36pt;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">Corey said that this work has been merged in. It would be helpful if some members could review the section numbering.</span></p><br><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-left:18pt;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">Dimitris Zacharopoulos asked if there was a plan to rebase the profiles branch to synch with the master branch.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-left:18pt;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">Corey said that he is planning to do that as the final step before the discussion period begins.</span></p><br><ol style="margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px" start="3"><li dir="ltr" style="list-style-type:decimal;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre"><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt" role="presentation"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">Review of the BRs for use of the defined terms Applicant and Applicant Representative</span></p></li></ol><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-left:36pt;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">Corey said we left off at section 3.2.2.4 at the last meeting, so we’ll begin there.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-left:36pt;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">Corey said that the term ‘ownership’ is used in addition to ‘control’, which may be a holdover from old methods.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-left:36pt;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">Tim asked if we have really removed all the methods that rely on ownership instead of control. Ownership is better than control if you can prove it.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-left:36pt;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">Trevoli Ponds-White asked if an Applicant is an Applicant if they also hold a certificate from the CA, making them a Subscriber.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-left:36pt;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">Tim and Clint said that you can be both at the same time depending on the context.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-left:36pt;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">Trev asked about the Subscriber Agreement - are you an Applicant if you have already agreed to the CA’s Subscriber Agreement? This also applies to renewals - are you an Applicant or a Subscriber?</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-left:36pt;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">Tim said that it makes no sense to force the Subscriber/Applicant to agree again.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-left:36pt;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">Clint said that the term Applicant applies to the collection and verification of data during the certificate request process. Does this cause a conflict?</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-left:36pt;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">Trev asked if an Applicant is only someone who has no relationship with the CA? This is bizarre, for example, for someone using ACME.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-left:36pt;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">Tim said that the BRs are more concerned with whether you have gone through the application process or not. Maybe there should be different rules for recertification. Separating technical requirements from business/legal requirements might make automation easier.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-left:36pt;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">Trev agreed. Applicant is also tied up with business processes.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-left:36pt;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">Corey restated that the idea is to separate business and technical application requirements.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-left:36pt;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">Tim said that it is worth considering.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-left:36pt;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">Clint said that refining the problem statement might help us to determine if separating processes is a good idea.</span></p><br><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-left:36pt;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">Looking at the top of page 36, Corey said that the use of the term Applicant is scoped to a single request: “Completed validations of Applicant authority may be valid for the issuance of multiple Certificates over time”</span></p><br><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-left:36pt;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">Viewing the language “For purposes of domain validation, the term Applicant includes the Applicant’s Parent Company, Subsidiary Company, or Affiliate.“, Corey asked about the definition of “Affiliate” and TIm read the definition from the BRs. The definition infers a close legal relationship. </span></p><br><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-left:36pt;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">3.2.2.4.2 states “Confirming the Applicant’s control over the FQDN…”</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-left:36pt;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">Corey said that Applicant is used in the definition of “Random Value”.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-left:36pt;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">TIm said that this method sometimes confirms ownership and sometimes confirms control, so this method should refer to both.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-left:36pt;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">Wayne Thayer said that the term ‘ownership’ is not appropriate for domain names.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-left:36pt;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">Corey proposed replacing “ownership” with “is the Registrant”.</span></p><br><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-left:36pt;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">3.2.2.4.3 is no longer in use.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-left:36pt;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">Ben Wilson asked if thi section should be removed.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-left:36pt;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">Tim said that we should add this to a cleanup ballot</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-left:36pt;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">Corey said that he is working on a cleanup ballot</span></p><br><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-left:36pt;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">3.2.2.4.4, 5, and 6 methods use the term in the opening sentence. It was agreed to skip over those uses as redundant.</span></p><br><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-left:36pt;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">3.2.2.4.7 states “if the Applicant submitted the Certificate request…”</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-left:36pt;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">Tim asked what that means? Is the alternative that the Applicant Representative submits the request? This language might be wrong.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-left:36pt;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">Corey said that regardless of the existence of an Applicant Representative, the request comes from the Applicant.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-left:36pt;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">Trev referenced ballot 190 for this language.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-left:36pt;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">Corey said that he would follow up on this issue.</span></p><br><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-left:36pt;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">Corey said that 3.2.2.4.8 doesn’t make any unique use of “Applicant”.</span></p><br><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-left:36pt;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">Tim said that 3.2.2.4.12 is a case where ownership is confirmed.</span></p><br><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-left:36pt;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">Nothing unique in the use of “Applicant” was discussed when reviewing methods 13-17.</span></p><br><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-left:36pt;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">For 3.2.2.4.18, Corey asked about random value freshness</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-left:36pt;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">Corey said that method 18 shares security properties with method 7, but 18 does not include the freshness language from method 7. We need to look into this because both methods share the same security properties.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-left:36pt;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">Tim mentioned a ballot from a few years ago that would distinguish values that require freshness from values that are secrets.</span></p><br><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-left:36pt;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">Corey said that we can remove the effective dates from methods 18 and 19.</span></p><br><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-left:36pt;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">No concerns were noted with method 20.</span></p><br><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-left:36pt;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">Tim suggested skipping the IP address section 3.2.2.5 when we continue the review at the next call.</span></p><br><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">Meeting adjourned.</span></p></b><br class="gmail-Apple-interchange-newline"></div>