[cabfpub] Revised document for Ballot 89 - Adopt Requirements for the Processing of EV SSL Certificates v.2

[Gervase Markham]

On 12/10/12 01:31, Rick Andrews wrote:
> I’ve updated the document again to include feedback from Kathleen. I
> changed the title back to Guidelines as opposed to Requirements, and
> changed a lot of musts to shoulds.
> Please look it over again, especially browser members. If we have
> consensus on this version, I’ll advance it towards a ballot. Thanks,

Hi Rick,

Thank you for your changes, and for taking our reservations into account.

We note the point Ryan raised about DANE; we would not want to limit our 
freedom to decide how to present connections secured using a certificate 
from DANE to the user. (This is still very much an ongoing discussion; 
we don't even have a patch for DANE yet. We will certainly listen to the 
CA point of view as we do our comparative analysis of the risk profiles 
of different mechanisms.) So "rolling back the language", as you 
suggest, seems like a good thing.

We have one remaining bit of feedback: can we make sure the ballot is 
named to match the new title of the document, e.g. "Adopt Guidelines for 
the Processing of Extended Validation SSL Certificates v.2.0"?

Other than that, we are happy to support it. :-)

Gerv