[cabfpub] Posted on behalf of customer

Ryan Sleevi sleevi at google.com
Thu Dec 15 22:26:02 UTC 2016

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 2:05 PM, Dean Coclin via Public <public at cabforum.org
> wrote:

> The below was written by FD and I am posting on their behalf:
> When we requested our certificates previously, there was general
> acknowledgment in the forum that December 31 was the most difficult time
> for these certificates to expire. Even so, our request was limited so that
> the certificates were set to expire at this time and others were extended
> into 2017. The only justification for the difference in treatment was
> unrelated to the application itself. We believe that the coordinated
> decision to grant different extension dates was inappropriate for the
> members of the CA/B Forum who are competing entities acting as a standards
> setting organization. This individualized decision effectively prevents
> merchants from reaching one provider over another.

To be clear: The CA/Browser Forum does not grand exceptions. Individual
root stores do. And if a *single* root store disagrees to accept such a
change, a CA issuing such a cert does so at their own peril of being
removed from that root store for non-compliance with that root store.

So the suggestion of coordination is both factually and materially
incorrect and misleading, based on a misunderstanding of the exception
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20161215/ebe81048/attachment-0003.html>

More information about the Public mailing list