[cabfpub] Proposed Ballot 168 - RFC Conflicts

Peter Bowen pzb at amzn.com
Fri Apr 15 21:46:57 UTC 2016


Is this something you can support?


> On Apr 15, 2016, at 2:24 PM, Jeremy Rowley <jeremy.rowley at digicert.com> wrote:
> Yes - this resolves my concern. Thanks Peter.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Peter Bowen
> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 3:20 PM
> To: CABFPub
> Subject: [cabfpub] Proposed Ballot 168 - RFC Conflicts
> As there is concern that the changes in section 7 of the BR in Ballot 167 would have an unintended consequences, I’m proposing this ballot.  I hope that this will resolve those concerns.
> Thanks,
> Peter
> Ballot 168: RFC Conflicts
> The following motion has been proposed by Peter Bowen of Amazon and endorsed by _____________________.
> Background: Ballot 167 added an explicit list of RFCs to which Certificates and Certificate Revocation Lists must conform.  The ballot was not clear that the Baseline Requirements can specify exceptions to the RFC conformance requirement.  This is ballot makes such clear.
> ----BEGIN MOTION----
> Retroactive to the date of passage of ballot 167, append the following sentence to the introduction paragraph of section 7 of the Baseline Requirements:
> "Where there is a conflict between these Requirements and an RFC, these Requirements control.”
> ----END MOTION----
> The review period for this ballot shall commence as soon as two endorsements are received and shall close one week later.  Unless the motion is withdrawn during the review period, the voting period shall start immediately thereafter and shall close one week after start.
> _______________________________________________
> Public mailing list
> Public at cabforum.org
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public

More information about the Public mailing list