[cabfpub] BRs section 9.16.3 (exception for laws)

Jeremy Rowley jeremy.rowley at digicert.com
Mon May 2 17:27:37 UTC 2016

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.

-----Original Message-----
From: Gervase Markham [mailto:gerv at mozilla.org]
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2016 8:04 AM
To: Eric Mill <eric at konklone.com>; Jeremy Rowley <jeremy.rowley at digicert.com>
Cc: public at cabforum.org
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] BRs section 9.16.3 (exception for laws)

On 28/04/16 13:14, Eric Mill wrote:
> Jeremy's and Ryan's points are both solid. Combining them leads to
> this proposed change:

Yes, this is an improvement. Thanks to all three of you :-) Further thoughts, 


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4964 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20160502/1b17d899/attachment.p7s>

More information about the Public mailing list