[cabfpub] [cabfman] Ballot [94] - Adoption of CA/Browser Forum Bylaws

Rich Smith richard.smith at comodo.com
Thu Nov 15 22:03:39 UTC 2012

From: public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On 
Behalf Of Eddy Nigg (StartCom Ltd.)

[RWS] <snip> If a change to the guidelines doesn't provide any benefit to the 
relying parties (e.g. browsers) then it might be questionable if it's really 
necessary or if it's just something some CAs would like to have. [RWS] </snip>

[RWS] But if it doesn't have any detrimental effect to relying parties and is 
beneficial to CAs and/or their customers, then I would definitely not call 
that unnecessary.  Going back to ballot 88 we had placed restrictions that had 
real consequences for a subscriber with a very legitimate use case.  I don't 
consider the changes made by that ballot unnecessary at all.  And I think the 
government of a widely recognized independent country whose problem we solved 
would agree.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20121115/d7bf0d74/attachment-0004.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 6391 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20121115/d7bf0d74/attachment-0004.bin>

More information about the Public mailing list