[cabfpub] Ballot 213 - Revocation Timeline Extension

[Gervase Markham]

On 13/09/17 21:01, Ryan Sleevi via Public wrote:
> So it seems reasonable - and important - to bring transparency to that.

How about this? The BRs require that there be a report and that it be
published (somewhere) - mandating transparency. And we can make a
Mozilla root program requirement that "the report produced by the CA
under section X.X.X of the BRs should be posted to m.d.s.p." or similar.

That keeps the BRs in their place without overreaching, doesn't require
the CABF to be an accumulator of information, and yet also makes sure
all the reports end up in an analyzable place.

Does that work?

Gerv