Entrust votes No to ballot SC-74.
Bruce.
From: Servercert-wg On Behalf Of Bruce
Morton via Servercert-wg
Sent: Monday, May 6, 2024 8:24 AM
To: Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) ; CA/B Forum Server
Certificate WG Public Discussion List
Subject: Re: [Servercert-wg] [EXTERNAL] [Voting Begins
Entrust votes Yes to ballot SC-74.
Bruce.
From: Servercert-wg On Behalf Of Dimitris
Zacharopoulos (HARICA) via Servercert-wg
Sent: Sunday, May 5, 2024 4:24 AM
To: CA/B Forum Server Certificate WG Public Discussion List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Servercert-wg] [Voting Begins] Ballot SC-74 -
Hi Ben,
We have some feedback from our legal team.
First suggestion is to simplify the change to only address the objectives of
the ballot:
5. Subscriber Agreement: That, if the CA and Subscriber are not Affiliated, the
Subscriber and CA are parties to a legally valid and enforceable
Entrust votes Yes to ballot SC-073.
Bruce.
From: Servercert-wg On Behalf Of Wayne
Thayer via Servercert-wg
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2024 8:00 PM
To: CA/B Forum Server Certificate WG Public Discussion List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Servercert-wg] Voting Period Begins - Ballot SC-073:
Entrust votes Yes to ballot SC-72.
Bruce.
From: Servercert-wg On Behalf Of Paul van
Brouwershaven via Servercert-wg
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2024 8:01 AM
To: CA/B Forum Server Certificate WG Public Discussion List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Servercert-wg] [Voting Period Begins]: SC-72 - Delete
Entrust votes Yes to ballot SC-69v3.
Bruce.
From: Servercert-wg On Behalf Of Martijn
Katerbarg via Servercert-wg
Sent: Monday, March 4, 2024 5:59 AM
To: CA/B Forum Server Certificate WG Public Discussion List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Servercert-wg] [Voting Period Begins]: SC-69v3 Clarify
Entrust votes Yes to ballot SC65.
Bruce.
From: Servercert-wg On Behalf Of Inigo
Barreira via Servercert-wg
Sent: Monday, March 4, 2024 10:34 AM
To: CA/B Forum Server Certificate WG Public Discussion List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Servercert-wg] [Voting Period Begins]: SC65: Convert EVGs
into
Hi Wayne,
I will endorse this ballot.
Thanks, Bruce.
From: Servercert-wg On Behalf Of Wayne
Thayer via Servercert-wg
Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2024 12:38 PM
To: CA/B Forum Server Certificate WG Public Discussion List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Servercert-wg] Compromised/Weak Keys Ballot
Entrust votes Yes to ballot SC-070.
Bruce.
From: Servercert-wg On Behalf Of Aaron
Gable via Servercert-wg
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2024 11:57 AM
To: CA/B Forum Server Certificate WG Public Discussion List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Servercert-wg] [Voting Period Begins] SC-070: Clarify the
use
Doug,
I do agree that we need to update the EV Guidelines. They were created with the
theme of single, manual certificate requests. There was no consideration for
automation. I do think that we should get update understanding of what we want
out of EV. I agree with "increased verified
Entrust votes Yes to ballot SC-68.
Bruce.
From: Servercert-wg On Behalf Of Dimitris
Zacharopoulos (HARICA) via Servercert-wg
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2024 4:00 AM
To: CA/B Forum Server Certificate WG Public Discussion List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Servercert-wg] Voting Begins for Ballot
I thought an intriguing promise of doing documents in Github and in the same
format is that we would see the requirements in the same section, which would
allow for better management. Also, the proposal Paul brought forward for the BR
of BRs would work much better if we use the same sections. I
Hi Dustin,
Thanks for the update. Would still like to know why the Subscriber Agreement
definition is so narrow, "Provisions that the Applicant/Subscriber accepts
regarding the safekeeping and acceptable uses of the Key Pair and Certificate
issued in accordance with these Requirements", but
Hi Ben,
I know we haven’t started the discussion phase, but we have some comments from
our legal team.
Section 1.6.1, the new Subscriber Agreement definition would narrow
considerably the defined scope of a Subscriber Agreement. The narrowed scope
would not accommodate all the BR requirements
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
requirements around OCSP, which
haven't changed.
I don't want anyone accidentally running afoul of those program requirements
because they read the BRs in isolation.
-Tim
From: Servercert-wg
mailto:servercert-wg-boun...@cabforum.org>>
On Behalf Of Bruce Morton via Servercert-wg
Sent: Friday, J
Was just doing an implementation review of this ballot and the "optional" date
for not supporting OCSP is confusing. Section 4.10.2 states "The CA SHALL
operate and maintain its CRL and optional OCSP capability with resources
sufficient to provide a response time of ten seconds or less under
17 matches
Mail list logo
