[cabfpub] CAB Forum Document Versioning

[Tom Albertson]

From another perspective, trust but verify - non-binding input is swell, but if it can't be verified its not valuable to us as a program requirement.

-----Original Message-----
From: Gervase Markham [mailto:gerv at mozilla.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2013 8:39 AM
To: richard.smith at comodo.com; jeremy.rowley at digicert.com; 'Sheehy, Don (CA - Toronto)'; Tom Albertson; 'CABFPub'
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] CAB Forum Document Versioning

On 04/02/13 09:27, Rich Smith wrote:
>> 1) Standard adoption date - when a particular version of the standard
>>    is finalized
>>
>> 2) Effective date - the date which CAB Forum recommends to browsers
>>    that they choose as their "actual effective date" (see below)
...

> [RWS] The above being the case, IMO the CA/B Forum SHOULD only deal with #1. 
> In absence of any control over 3-5 #2 only serves to muddy the waters.  
> We should adopt and leave it to the browsers and auditors to tell CAs 
> when they MUST comply.

As a browser maker, we appreciate guidance from the collective wisdom of the CAB Forum on when the CAs feel they can make changes by. We would much rather have that (non-binding) input than not have it. If it's decided it should be stated in some form other than an "effective date", e.g. a "suggested implementation date", that's fine, but I think the discussions which lead to the suggestion, and the suggestion itself, are both valuable to us.

Gerv