[cabf_validation] Jeremy's IP ballot

[Ryan Sleevi]

I agree that a parallel to #12 doesn't make sense, but it is possible to
parallelize 3.2.2.4.2 / 3.2.2.4.3

As an aside, I'd be saddened if we did a bunch of [reserved] numbering for
3.2.2.5 just to keep it in sync with 3.2.2.4. I'd be quite happy if we
treated them as distinct sets, with their own numbering scheme, since they
are providing different levels of assertions :)

On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 3:28 PM, Wayne Thayer via Validation <
validation at cabforum.org> wrote:

> This ballot includes a parallel to domain validation method #1 that
> suffers from the same fundamental problems. That should be removed, and I
> don't think a parallel to method #12 makes sense here.
>
> There are also a few typos that should be fixed:
> * paragraph 2 - "using at a method"
> * paragraph 4 refers to "domain validation method" instead of IP
> * 3.2.2.5.1 - " except unless"
>
> Thanks,
>
> Wayne
>
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 7:18 PM Tim Hollebeek via Validation <
> validation at cabforum.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Attached is Jeremy’s ballot from October of 2017.  If someone wants to
>> use something that isn’t in there, let me know.
>>
>>
>>
>> -Tim
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Validation mailing list
>> Validation at cabforum.org
>> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/validation
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Validation mailing list
> Validation at cabforum.org
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/validation
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/attachments/20180511/e7849bc0/attachment-0001.html>