The redline document does not appear to clearly show the changes to be reviewed.
Thanks, Bruce.
From: Smcwg-public On Behalf Of Stephen
Davidson via Smcwg-public
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2024 2:41 PM
To: smcwg-public@cabforum.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Smcwg-public] NOTICE OF REVIEW PERIOD –
Entrust votes Yes to ballot SMC06v2.
Bruce.
From: Smcwg-public On Behalf Of Stephen
Davidson via Smcwg-public
Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2024 2:15 PM
To: smcwg-public@cabforum.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Smcwg-public] Ballot SMC06v2: Post implementation
clarification and corrections
Ballot
Entrust votes Yes to ballot SMC-05.
Bruce.
From: Smcwg-public On Behalf Of Corey
Bonnell via Smcwg-public
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2024 6:32 PM
To: SMIME Certificate Working Group
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Smcwg-public] Voting period begins for SMC-05: Adoption of
CAA for S/MIME
Ballot
I wondering about this requirement, "CAA checking is optional for Certificates
issued by a Technically Constrained Subordinate CA Certificate as set out in
[Section 7.1.5](#715-name-constraints), where the lack of CAA checking is an
explicit contractual provision in the contract with the
I think we need to fix this section:
3.2.2.4 CAA records
This version of the S/MIME Baseline Requirements does not require the CA to
check for CAA records. The CAA property tags for `issue`, `issuewild`, and
`iodef` as specified in [RFC
8659](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8659) are
Entrust votes Yes to ballot SNC04.
Bruce.
From: Smcwg-public On Behalf Of Stephen
Davidson via Smcwg-public
Sent: Wednesday, November 1, 2023 1:08 PM
To: SMIME Certificate Working Group
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Smcwg-public] VOTE FOR APPROVAL Ballot SMC04: Addition of
ETSI TS 119 411-6 to audit
Hi Stephen,
I think the wrong link was provided as the link below does not show a new plan
for CAA.
Thanks, Bruce.
From: Smcwg-public On Behalf Of Stephen
Davidson via Smcwg-public
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2023 2:28 PM
To: smcwg-public@cabforum.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Smcwg-public]
Hi Ben,
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
Hi Stephen,
With other working groups, as Word and PDF redline version is provided for
review. This really helps for IPR as the changes can easily be identified. It
also helps with implementation for the same reason.
Can you please provided redlines?
Thanks, Bruce.
From: Smcwg-public On Behalf