Re: [Smcwg-public] NOTICE OF REVIEW PERIOD – SMCWG BALLOT SMC06

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 –

Re: [Smcwg-public] [EXTERNAL] Ballot SMC06v2: Post implementation clarification and corrections

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

Re: [Smcwg-public] [EXTERNAL] Voting period begins for SMC-05: Adoption of CAA for S/MIME

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

Re: [Smcwg-public] CAA for S/MIME

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

Re: [Smcwg-public] CAA for S/MIME

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

Re: [Smcwg-public] VOTE FOR APPROVAL Ballot SMC04: Addition of ETSI TS 119 411-6 to audit standards

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

Re: [Smcwg-public] Considering CAA for the S/MIME Baseline Requirements

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]

Re: [Smcwg-public] [EXTERNAL] [Servercert-wg] SC-XXX: Modify Subscriber Agreement and Terms of Use

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

Re: [Smcwg-public] [EXTERNAL] NOTICE OF REVIEW PERIOD - S/MIME BASELINE REQUIREMENTS - BALLOT SMC03

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