tim.hollebeek at digicert.com
Wed Aug 16 13:00:45 UTC 2023
I agree with Bruce, and I think we might also want to synchronize the effective dates. Many customers have a variety of kinds of certificates included in the same contract, and having two different sets of terminology for the same legal document involved in the same contract would be really confusing. “Party B agrees to abide by document X, which is called either the Subscriber Agreement or Terms of Service depending on whether a TLS certificate is being issued or not …”
If we’re going to do this (and I have no idea what our legal thinks of this proposal), we probably need to rip the bandaid off across all three groups simultaneously.
From: Smcwg-public <smcwg-public-bounces at cabforum.org> On Behalf Of Bruce Morton via Smcwg-public
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 1:29 PM
To: Ben Wilson <bwilson at mozilla.com>; CA/B Forum Server Certificate WG Public Discussion List <servercert-wg at cabforum.org>
Cc: SMIME Certificate Working Group <smcwg-public at cabforum.org>; cscwg-public at cabforum.org
Thanks for the simplification. I also think the ballot should address the EV Guidelines, which also uses both terms. Could you please review?
From the CAB Forum point of view, I am concerned with this ballot, since I believe the Code Signing and S/MIME BRs use the current terms. This may put the requirements out of sync, which may impact CAs which issue different certificate types. Hopefully the Code Signing and S/MIME working groups will also review and consider addressing these changes if the ballot passes.
We do need to address this type of issue in an overall set of requirements to address all certificate types.
From: Servercert-wg <servercert-wg-bounces at cabforum.org<mailto:servercert-wg-bounces at cabforum.org>> On Behalf Of Ben Wilson via Servercert-wg
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2023 3:40 PM
To: CA/B Forum Server Certificate WG Public Discussion List <servercert-wg at cabforum.org<mailto:servercert-wg at cabforum.org>>
Hi, Dustin Hollenback and I are looking for another endorser for a proposed ballot - see https: //github. com/cabforum/servercert/compare/a0360b61e73476959220dc328e3b68d0224fa0b3. . 663695b8319c0cd32e0060bb9304ecd32e3737a1 It would remove the concept
Dustin Hollenback and I are looking for another endorser for a proposed ballot - see https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/compare/a0360b61e73476959220dc328e3b68d0224fa0b3..663695b8319c0cd32e0060bb9304ecd32e3737a1<https://url.avanan.click/v2/___https:/urldefense.com/v3/__https:/github.com/cabforum/servercert/compare/a0360b61e73476959220dc328e3b68d0224fa0b3..663695b8319c0cd32e0060bb9304ecd32e3737a1__;!!FJ-Y8qCqXTj2!ZAcANOKKYwiAsovlD5P6N_i4Z0CJbk1vKgNr0PVzTLCQVCIjFUx5W1pQXndGPggekLMBPDowQKSrxCn1zrGZH26L0LUsDA$___.YXAzOmRpZ2ljZXJ0OmE6bzoyYWJmYTNmMmQ2NGRiY2MzMDVhMWIyZGFmYTNhYWNlODo2OmVlMjU6MjA1OGU5MzMwMGZiZGVlMTQ4M2Q4Y2Q5NmE2ZDJhNDgzOWI2NDBmOTIwNjJkOTg5MDgwZmFkZDZhMDg0MTIxYzpoOkY>
Is anyone interested in endorsing?
Any email and files/attachments transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If this message has been sent to you in error, you must not copy, distribute or disclose of the information it contains. Please notify Entrust immediately and delete the message from your system.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Servercert-wg