Re: [Servercert-wg] Fixing lag between requirements changes and linter updates

Thank you both for the thoughts and feedback! I agree that it shouldn't be a requirement; I mostly included that option just to mark the extreme end of the possibility space we're working in. Additional replies inline below: On Tue, Apr 2, 2024 at 12:38 AM Martijn Katerbarg <

Re: [Servercert-wg] [Voting Period Begins]: SC-72 - Delete except to policyQualifiers in EVGs; align with BRs by making them NOT RECOMMENDED

Understood. We will be sure to submit our votes within the designated period for future ballots. From: Inigo Barreira Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 6:50 AM To: Tom Zermeno ; CA/B Forum Server Certificate WG Public Discussion List ; Paul van Brouwershaven Subject: RE: [Voting Period

[Servercert-wg] Results of the Ballot SC-72: Delete except to policyQualifiers in EVGs; align with BRs by making them NOT RECOMMENDED

Hi The voting period for SC72 (Delete except to policyQualifiers in EVGs; align with BRs by making them NOT RECOMMENDED) has completed, and the ballot has passed. Voting Results Certificate Issuers 15 votes total, with no abstentions: * 15 Issuers voting YES: Buypass, Certum

Re: [Servercert-wg] Fixing lag between requirements changes and linter updates

Like Martijn, we appreciate the spirit behind this recommendation. Establishing clear expectations related to linting is something the Chrome Root Program considers important. We’ve touched [1] on this on the open SCWG

Re: [Servercert-wg] [Voting Period Begins]: SC-72 - Delete except to policyQualifiers in EVGs; align with BRs by making them NOT RECOMMENDED

Sorry, this vote can´t be counted because arrived past the end time. De: Servercert-wg En nombre de Tom Zermeno via Servercert-wg Enviado el: lunes, 1 de abril de 2024 16:37 Para: Paul van Brouwershaven ; CA/B Forum Server Certificate WG Public Discussion List Asunto: Re: [Servercert-wg]

Re: [Servercert-wg] Fixing lag between requirements changes and linter updates

Hi Samantha, Aaron, I like this idea, quite a lot. Though I do want to share a few thoughts I’ve got on the subject: * While we could (strongly) recommend that the ballot authors and/or endorsers try to incorporate this, we should make it an optional recommendation. Not everyone may have