Hi Martijn,
I can't find (in the call minutes) a past discussion about that, however
I assume it's fine for everyone since I haven't seen any objections.
Adriano
Il 08/04/2024 10:08, Martijn Katerbarg ha scritto:
Hi Adriano,
My apologies! It was in the past discussed about limiting
Hi Adriano,
My apologies! It was in the past discussed about limiting timestamping to 72 or
75 months alltogether, then not requiring the SubCAs to be offline. The
compromise here still allows up to 135 month timestamp certificates, if the
SubCAs are offline.
Mind you there’s no current
Hi,
wouldn't it have been a little kinder to wait for an answer to the
question I asked on Friday 5?
It may be that the answer was obvious, but it remains unclear to me
where that 72 months comes from.
Adriano
Il 08/04/2024 09:31, Martijn Katerbarg via Cscwg-public ha scritto:
Purpose of the Ballot
This ballot updates the “Baseline Requirements for the Issuance and Management
of Publicly‐Trusted Code Signing Certificates“ version 3.7 in order to clarify
language regarding Timestamp Authority Private Key Protection. The main goals
of this ballot are to:
1. Require
