Fair enough! I was aiming for the same style of "reasonable person" as is
often found in legal texts, since I had some concern that someone might try
to use this phrasing to interpret "11 months" as "11 x 28 = 308 days",
which would be a potential minimum value but not one that a reasonable
person
You don’t want to call out “reasonableness” unless you’re actually going to let
people use their discretion.
The first new sentence, as I read it, could be rewritten as: “All statements of
time periods SHALL be taken to mean exactly that time period, and not one
microsecond more.”
That
Hi all,
Thanks for the great discussion in the ServerCert WG call this morning!
I have updated this draft ballot to attempt to use Clint's language around
interpreting time periods to be their minimum value. Please take a look!
https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/pull/470/files
Thanks
Thank you Jeffery.
Still looking for an additional endorser and/or comments.
Regards,
Martijn
From: Daniel Jeffery
Date: Wednesday, 3 January 2024 at 22:01
To: Martijn Katerbarg , CA/B Forum Server
Certificate WG Public Discussion List
Cc: Tobias S. Josefowitz
Subject: Re:
On 4/1/2024 5:50 μ.μ., Ben Wilson wrote:
I think this is listed as an issue in GitHub -
https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/issues/444.
Indeed, the cleanup ballot brings back the number 7.1.5 but the section
is empty, despite the real information being already included in other
sections
I think this is listed as an issue in GitHub -
https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/issues/444.
On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 4:54 AM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) via
Servercert-wg wrote:
> Dear Members,
>
> While taking another pass at reviewing the new certificate profiles
> introduced in
Dear Members,
While taking another pass at reviewing the new certificate profiles
introduced in ballot SC62, I realized that there is some deviation from
the RFC 3647 structure that the BRs should maintain to help alignment of
CA CP/CPS documents.
This is the structure defined by RFC 3647
