[cabfpub] BRs section 9.16.3 (exception for laws)
jeremy.rowley at digicert.com
Tue May 3 14:07:40 MST 2016
Sounds good to me.
From: Gervase Markham [mailto:gerv at mozilla.org]
Sent: Tuesday, May 3, 2016 5:22 AM
To: Jeremy Rowley <jeremy.rowley at digicert.com>; Eric Mill <eric at konklone.com>
Cc: public at cabforum.org
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] BRs section 9.16.3 (exception for laws)
On 02/05/16 18:27, Jeremy Rowley wrote:
> The one item I don't like is the "detailed message" as it's not clear
> what constitutes a detailed message. I suspect whether something is
> "detailed" is not auditable? Unfortunately, I don't have a good
> suggestion except to list out what we want the message to include.
Remove "detailed", add "explaining"?
The parties involved SHALL notify the CA / Browser Forum by sending a message
to questions at cabforum.org explaining the facts, circumstances, and law(s)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 4964 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20160503/2956e956/attachment.bin
More information about the Public