[cabfpub] BRs section 9.16.3 (exception for laws)

[Gervase Markham]

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) involved, ...?


Gerv