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

I concur that it is a misrepresentation to say that a "NOT RECOMMENDED" in the BRs and a "MUST" in the EVGs is a conflict. It is no more of a conflict than we saw recently where European law allowed two identifiers to be used while the EVGs

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

> > I don’t have any particular concern with the change itself, to be clear, > but the motivation behind this — and the abruptness of the introduction of > the topic — remain opaque to me. It appears to me that this bug is the motivation for this ballot:

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

Hi Paul, There are a lot of ways that the EVGs differ from the TBRs; that’s basically the point of them, as I understand it. Specifically it’s within the profiles that most non-process-oriented differences can be found between EV, OV, IV, and DV TLS certificates. Are all of these differences