[cabfpub] BRs section 9.16.3 (exception for laws)

Jeremy Rowley jeremy.rowley at digicert.com
Tue May 3 21:07:40 UTC 2016

Sounds good to me.

-----Original Message-----
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) 
involved, ...?

-------------- 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/20160503/2956e956/attachment-0001.p7s>

More information about the Public mailing list