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

[Gervase Markham]

On 17/04/17 18:17, Jeremy Rowley wrote:
> Why the sigh? I think we should have a bright-line rule about when the 
> scope/date should be in the proposed ballot vs. when the scope/date must be in 
> the document itself.  Otherwise, the objection to including a date in the 
> ballot v. BR text seems arbitrary.  If I understand correctly, the accepted 
> rule proposed is:
> 
> 1) The only point in time action that matters is certificate issuance;

I'm not sure that's quite it. The relevant point in time action is
whatever the BR requirement is about. So requirements about data
gathering relate to when data is gathered; requirements about data reuse
relate to when data is reused, and so on.

But if you replace "certificate issuance" with "actions of this type"
then the below:

> 2) If BR change exempts future certificate issuance from a requirement, the 
> requirement date must be specified in the BR language; and
> 3) If the BR change only exempts previously issued certificates, no exception 
> or requirement date should be included in the ballot or BR language.

is entirely correct in my view.

Gerv