[cabfpub] Require commonName in Root and Intermediate Certificates ballot draft (2)

[Jeremy Rowley]

Doesn't this ballot suffer from the same limitation that Ryan raised in
connection with the domain validation ballot? Namely, that this language
"For the avoidance of doubt, these updated requirements apply only to root
and intermediate certificates issued after the Effective Date of this
ballot, which is upon approval (i.e. at the end of the IPR Review Period if
no Exclusion Notices are filed)" needs to be part of the document text? 

-----Original Message-----
From: Public [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Gervase
Markham via Public
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2017 8:08 AM
To: Patrick Tronnier <Patrick.Tronnier at oati.net>; CA/Browser Forum Public
Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>
Cc: Gervase Markham <gerv at mozilla.org>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Require commonName in Root and Intermediate
Certificates ballot draft (2)

On 13/04/17 17:34, Patrick Tronnier wrote:
> I will endorse.

Thank you. One more?

Gerv
_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
Public at cabforum.org
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
-------------- 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/20170417/2484b3b0/attachment-0001.p7s>