[Servercert-wg] [EXTERNAL] Ballot SC23: Precertificates

Ryan Sleevi sleevi at google.com
Fri Oct 18 06:51:25 MST 2019

On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 3:10 AM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) <
dzacharo at harica.gr> wrote:

> I believe this language is very difficult to understand, at least for
> me.

Any other context to help understand the difficulty or confusion?

> Perhaps we should break down these sentences defining what it means
> for a serial number to be "reserved" or "assigned" (we don't need to add
> in section 1.6.1) and then state the requirements. I think it would be
> easier to read.

Any suggestions for how to accomplish this?

That's what the text currently does, so I'm not sure if I'm understanding
the concern correctly. Is it to move from prose, as it's currently written,
into something like enumerated bullet points? I avoided that because a
number of CAs shared concerns with expressing requirements like this during
the F2F (during the discussion about the difficulty understanding the BRs),
and I was trying to respect that view. I'm fully supportive of trying to
make sure requirements are listed directly as that, with the exception of
the interpretation issues they create ("Default-Deny" being expected,
"Default-Allow" being the interpretation)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/servercert-wg/attachments/20191018/3803e31d/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Servercert-wg mailing list