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

Gervase Markham gerv at mozilla.org
Mon Apr 17 14:40:02 UTC 2017

On 17/04/17 15:28, Jeremy Rowley wrote:
> 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? 


I think that the plain and only sensible way to understand the BRs is
that particular rules apply only to actions taken when those rules are
in force. So if a motion e.g. alters the rules surrounding the issuance
of intermediate certificates, by default the new rules apply only to
issuances of intermediate certificates that happen after the motion
fully passes (i.e. after IPR review is complete). Such a motion does not
by default require the revocation and replacement of all previous
intermediate certificates which do not now meet the updated rules.

This default can, of course, be changed by explicit wording in the
motion which adds an instruction to the BRs to e.g. revoke all previous
certs or make any other provision retroactive, but that's not the default.

[How does this apply to the current debate about information reuse?
Information reuse is an action. So BR rules about information reuse
apply when you reuse information. BR rules about gathering information
apply when you gather information. But let's not get sidetracked by that
in this thread.]

Kirk was keen that the motion state this explicitly, so I added
something to the motion to state this explicitly, "for the avoidance of
doubt". However, I personally don't believe that there's any doubt. And
I don't think we want to clutter up the BRs with things which basically
say "this rule applies only to things which happen under the auspices of
this document." I think that's obvious.


More information about the Public mailing list