[cabfpub] Sunset for exceptions?

[Richard Barnes]

I would also be supportive of such a motion.

On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 6:25 PM, Jeremy Rowley <jeremy.rowley at digicert.com>
wrote:

> I’m happy to make the motion or endorse removal of these exceptions.
>
>
>
> *From:* public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Peter Bowen
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 19, 2016 4:09 PM
> *To:* Ryan Sleevi
> *Cc:* CABFPub
> *Subject:* Re: [cabfpub] Sunset for exceptions?
>
>
>
> On Jan 19, 2016, at 2:57 PM, Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Peter Bowen <pzb at amzn.com> wrote:
>
> The BRs contain at least two allowances for “legacy” certificate issuance:
>
> 6.1.7 (5) allows direct issuance of subscriber certificates from a root CA
>
> 6.3.2 allows certificates with validity periods longer than 39 months
>
> Are these still needed?  Are CAs relying upon these exceptions?  If not,
> does it make sense to ballot to remove these from the BRs?
>
>
>
> Peter, I'd be happy to support a ballot if you want to propose one. That
> tends to be the only way to get timely responses - the discussion period of
> the ballot.
>
>
>
> As an Associate Member, I cannot propose ballots.  Only those who have a
> full period-of-time audit can propose ballots.  Or at least that is my read
> of the bylaws.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160119/c2388c6d/attachment-0003.html>