[cabfpub] Ballot 160 - Amend Section 4 of Baseline Requirements

[Håvard Molland]

Opera votes YES

Håvard


On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 4:02 PM, Ben Wilson <ben.wilson at digicert.com> wrote:

> Thanks, Ryan.  Here is the amended Ballot 160:
>
>
>
> Ballot 160 - Amend Section 4 of Baseline Requirements
>
> The Policy Review Working Group has reviewed Section 4 of the Baseline
> Requirements and, as a result, suggests that certain changes be made.
> Therefore, the following motion has been proposed by Ben Wilson of DigiCert
> and endorsed by Tim Hollebeek of Trustwave and Kirk Hall of TrendMicro:
>
> -- MOTION BEGINS --
>
> 1) In Sections 4.2.3, 4.3.2, 4.4.1, 4.4.2, 4.4.3, 4.5.2, 4.6.1, 4.6.2,
> 4.6.3, 4.6.4, 4.6.5, 4.6.6, 4.6.7., 4.7.1, 4.7.2, 4.7.3, 4.7.4, 4.7.5,
> 4.7.6, 4.7.7, 4.8.1, 4.8.2, 4.8.3, 4.8.4, 4.8.5, 4.8.6, 4.8.7, 4.9.4,
> 4.9.8, 4.10.3, 4.11, and 4.12.1, add "No stipulation."
>
> 2) In Sections 4.9.14, 4.9.15, 4.9.16, and 4.12.2, add "Not applicable."
>
> 3) In Section 4.5.1, add "See Section 9.6.3, provisions 2. and 4."
>
> 4) In Section 4.9.2, add "The Subscriber, RA, or Issuing CA can initiate
> revocation. Additionally, Subscribers, Relying Parties, Application
> Software Suppliers, and other third parties may submit Certificate Problem
> Reports informing the Issuing CA of reasonable cause to revoke the
> certificate. "
>
> 5) In Section 4.9.6, add "No stipulation. (Note: Following certificate
> issuance, a certificate may be revoked for reasons stated in Section 4.9.1.
> Therefore, relying parties should check the revocation status of all
> certificates that contain a CDP or OCSP pointer.)"
>
> -- MOTION ENDS --
>
> The review period for this ballot shall commence at 2300 UTC on 21 January
> 2016, and will close at 2300 UTC on 28 January 2016. Unless the motion is
> withdrawn during the review period, the voting period will start
> immediately thereafter and will close at 2300 UTC on 4 February 2016. Votes
> must be cast by posting an on-list reply to this thread.
>
> A vote in favor of the motion must indicate a clear 'yes' in the response.
> A vote against must indicate a clear 'no' in the response. A vote to
> abstain must indicate a clear 'abstain' in the response. Unclear responses
> will not be counted. The latest vote received from any representative of a
> voting member before the close of the voting period will be counted. Voting
> members are listed here: https://cabforum.org/members/
>
> In order for the motion to be adopted, two thirds or more of the votes
> cast by members in the CA category and greater than 50% of the votes cast
> by members in the browser category must be in favor. Quorum is currently
> nine (9) members– at least nine members must participate in the ballot,
> either by voting in favor, voting against, or abstaining.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi at google.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, January 22, 2016 8:05 PM
> *To:* Ben Wilson <ben.wilson at digicert.com>
> *Cc:* CABFPub <public at cabforum.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 160 - Amend Section 4 of Baseline
> Requirements
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Ben Wilson <ben.wilson at digicert.com>
> wrote:
>
> Ballot 160 - Amend Section 4 of Baseline Requirements
>
> The Policy Review Working Group has reviewed Section 4 of the Baseline
> Requirements and, as a result, suggests that certain changes be made.
> Therefore, the following motion has been proposed by Ben Wilson of DigiCert
> and endorsed by Tim Hollebeek of Trustwave and Kirk Hall of TrendMicro:
>
> -- MOTION BEGINS --
>
> 4) In Section 4.9.2, add "The Subscriber can initiate revocation. Third
> parties can request revocation in accordance with Section 4.9.3. See also
> Section 3.4."
>
> Ben, sorry for the delay in replying to your suggestion. I provided the
> justification in the other thread (Ballot 159), but my suggestion was:
>
>
>
> "The Subscriber, RA, or Issuing CA can initiate revocation. Additionally,
> Subscribers, Relying Parties, Application Software Suppliers, and other
> third parties may submit Certificate Problem Reports [to the Issuing CA?
> informing the issuing CA?] of reasonable cause to revoke the certificate."
>
>
>
> How does that work for you and the endorsers?
>
> _______________________________________________
> Public mailing list
> Public at cabforum.org
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20160201/2007b919/attachment-0002.html>