[Smcwg-public] Redline of recent changes to SBR

[Stephen Davidson]

Acknowledged; will revert.

 

Note that the usage in the TLS BR is inconsistent: there are some uses of
Delegated Party and delegated part as well when the sense is clearly
Delegated Third Party.

 

Thanks Bruce.

 

 

 

From: Bruce Morton <Bruce.Morton at entrust.com> 
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 10:44 AM
To: Stephen Davidson <Stephen.Davidson at digicert.com>; SMIME Certificate
Working Group <smcwg-public at cabforum.org>
Subject: RE: Redline of recent changes to SBR

 

Hi Stephen,

 

Thanks for the redline. The updates have improved the SBRs.

 

I do have a question a about changing "Delegated Third Party" to "Delegated
Party". The term "Delegated Third Party" is a CA/Browser Forum term which is
used in the SSLBR, EVG, CSBR and NetSec documents. I would also assume the
term has been reused in CPs, CPSs and Subscriber Agreements provided by the
CAs. So why are we changing this term (using the same definition) for the
SBRs? I would recommend we use common terms in our requirements which would
provide consistency for CAs and Subscribers which issue/use different
certificate types.

 

 

Thanks, Bruce. 

 

From: Smcwg-public <smcwg-public-bounces at cabforum.org
<mailto:smcwg-public-bounces at cabforum.org> > On Behalf Of Stephen Davidson
via Smcwg-public
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2022 1:42 PM
To: smcwg-public at cabforum.org <mailto:smcwg-public at cabforum.org> 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Smcwg-public] Redline of recent changes to SBR

 

WARNING: This email originated outside of Entrust.
DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you trust the sender and know the
content is safe.

  _____  

Hello:

 

As noted during our call this week, we have been having a pre-ballot
discussion of the S/MIME Baseline Requirements (SBR) since May 2022 seeking
to address issues raised by WG members with the draft text.

 

Our goal in that lengthy pre-ballot discussion has been to address potential
issues before ballot, so that the S/MIME BR can progress through the formal
balloting steps as smoothly as possible. 

 

A "roll up" was requested of recent changes to the draft S/MIME BR as a
redline.  As such, the following link shows edits made to the draft since we
began our pre-ballot discussion.  

 

https://github.com/cabforum/smime/compare/bc6881a6d6bbff1b6793a17a6b737c1b94
80146b...1dc71b4a72ea93fbed010640f37bdbabe88c2591
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/github.com/cabforum/smime/compare/bc6881
a6d6bbff1b6793a17a6b737c1b9480146b...1dc71b4a72ea93fbed010640f37bdbabe88c259
1__;!!FJ-Y8qCqXTj2!Y_lGGXW_a0KEdEnPZuuF_p8iFKSjybQBNuCRNqkIJJmAxrsb3s9dipr8l
Dj0dX0MxOsRQty42rteKhTbAFPRQxp3CPKt$> 


Best regards, Stephen

Any email and files/attachments transmitted with it are confidential and 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...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/smcwg-public/attachments/20220830/3e8dfa52/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4999 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/smcwg-public/attachments/20220830/3e8dfa52/attachment-0001.p7s>