Re: [Servercert-wg] [Voting Period Begins]: SC65: Convert EVGs into RFC 3647 format v2

Actalis votes Yes on SC65. Adriano Il 04/03/2024 16:33, Inigo Barreira via Servercert-wg ha scritto: *Summary: * The Extended Validation Certificates guidelines (EVGs) were developed and written in a specific format. Since then, the RFC 3647 has been the basis (and the de-facto standard)

Re: [Servercert-wg] [Voting Period Begins]: SC-69v3 Clarify router and firewall logging requirements

JPRS votes YES to Ballot SC-69v3. Yoshihiko Matsuo On 2024/03/04 19:59, Martijn Katerbarg via Servercert-wg wrote: *Summary: * This ballot aims to clarify what data needs to be logged as part of the "Firewall and router activities" logging requirement in the Baseline Requirements. This ballot

Re: [Servercert-wg] [Voting Period Begins]: SC65: Convert EVGs into RFC 3647 format v2

TWCA votes YES on Ballot SC65 From: Servercert-wg On Behalf Of Inigo Barreira via Servercert-wg Sent: Monday, March 4, 2024 11:34 PM To: CA/B Forum Server Certificate WG Public Discussion List Subject: [Servercert-wg] [Voting Period Begins]: SC65: Convert EVGs into RFC 3647 format v2 Summar

[Servercert-wg] 回复： [Voting Period Begins]: SC65: Convert EVGs into RFC3647 format v2

CFCA votes YES Gao Fei CFCA 在 2024年3月4日 23:33，Inigo Barreira via Servercert-wg 写道： Summary: The Extended Validation Certificates guidelines (EVGs) were developed and written in a specific format. Since then, the RFC 3647 has been the basis (and the de-facto standard) for the CA/Browser

[Servercert-wg] 回复： [Voting Period Begins]: SC-69v3 Clarify router andfirewall logging requirements

CFCA votes YES Gao Fei CFCA 在 2024年3月4日 18:59，Martijn Katerbarg via Servercert-wg 写道： Summary: This ballot aims to clarify what data needs to be logged as part of the "Firewall and router activities" logging requirement in the Baseline Requirements. This ballot is proposed by Martijn Kate

Re: [Servercert-wg] [Discussion Period Begins]: SC-69v3 Clarify router and firewall logging requirements

IdenTrust votes "yes" to ballot SC-69v3. Marco Schambach From: Servercert-wg On Behalf Of Martijn Katerbarg via Servercert-wg Sent: Monday, February 26, 2024 2:00 AM To: CA/B Forum Server Certificate WG Public Discussion List Subject: [Servercert-wg] [Discussion Period Begins]: SC-6

Re: [Servercert-wg] [Voting Period Begins]: SC65: Convert EVGs into RFC 3647 format v2

smime.p7m Description: S/MIME encrypted message ___ Servercert-wg mailing list Servercert-wg@cabforum.org https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/servercert-wg

Re: [Servercert-wg] [Voting Period Begins]: SC65: Convert EVGs into RFC 3647 format v2

Microsoft votes Yes on SC65. Best, Karina Karina Sirota Goodley, MBA Security Program Manager 2 Trusted Root Program, AEP Trust and Governance My working hours may not look like yours and after-hours responses neither required nor expected. From: Servercert-wg On Behalf Of Inigo Barreira vi

Re: [Servercert-wg] [EXTERNAL]-Re: [Voting Period Begins]: SC-69v3 Clarify router and firewall logging requirements

OISTE votes “Yes” to SC-69v3. > From: Servercert-wg > On Behalf Of Martijn Katerbarg > via Servercert-wg > Sent: Monday, March 4, 2024 4:59 AM > To: CA/B Forum Server Certificate WG Public Discussion List > mailto:servercert-wg@cabforum.org>> > Subject

Re: [Servercert-wg] [Voting Period Begins]: SC-69v3 Clarify router and firewall logging requirements

DigiCert votes YES to SC-69v3. Thanks, Corey 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: [Servercert-wg] [Voting Period Begins]: SC-69v3 Clarify router and

Re: [Servercert-wg] [Voting Period Begins]: SC65: Convert EVGs into RFC 3647 format v2

SSL.com votes “yes” to SC-65. From: Servercert-wg On Behalf Of Inigo Barreira via Servercert-wg Sent: Monday, March 4, 2024 9:34 AM To: CA/B Forum Server Certificate WG Public Discussion List Subject: [Servercert-wg] [Voting Period Begins]: SC65: Convert EVGs into RFC 3647 format v2 Summa

Re: [Servercert-wg] [Voting Period Begins]: SC-69v3 Clarify router and firewall logging requirements

SSL.com votes “Yes” to SC-69v3. From: Servercert-wg On Behalf Of Martijn Katerbarg via Servercert-wg Sent: Monday, March 4, 2024 4:59 AM To: CA/B Forum Server Certificate WG Public Discussion List Subject: [Servercert-wg] [Voting Period Begins]: SC-69v3 Clarify router and firewall logging

Re: [Servercert-wg] [Voting Period Begins]: SC65: Convert EVGs into RFC 3647 format v2

Inigo are you going to fix the redline? I agree with Dimitris that it’s not actually clear what the change is. For recording purposes I think we want the ballot content to be correct. From: Servercert-wg On Behalf Of Inigo Barreira via Servercert-wg Sent: Thursday, March 7, 2024 2:23 AM To: Di

Re: [Servercert-wg] [Voting Period Begins]: SC-69v3 Clarify router and firewall logging requirements

Amazon Trust Services votes yes. From: Servercert-wg On Behalf Of Martijn Katerbarg via Servercert-wg Sent: Monday, March 4, 2024 2:59 AM To: CA/B Forum Server Certificate WG Public Discussion List Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Servercert-wg] [Voting Period Begins]: SC-69v3 Clarify router and firewall

Re: [Servercert-wg] [Voting Period Begins]: SC65: Convert EVGs into RFC 3647 format v2

SwissSign votes Yes on SC65: Convert EVGs into RFC Mike Von: Servercert-wg Im Auftrag von Inigo Barreira via Servercert-wg Gesendet: Montag, 4. März 2024 16:34 An: CA/B Forum Server Certificate WG Public Discussion List Betreff: [Servercert-wg] [Voting Period Begins]: SC65: Convert EVGs into

[Servercert-wg] Ballots SC65 and SC69 on voting period

Hi, This is just a reminder that there´re 2 ballots on voting period, SC65 and SC69. The reason for this email is that I´m checking that some members vote on one ballot or on the other and few are voting on both and I don´t know if that´s done on purpose or it´s because having 2 ballots at th

Re: [Servercert-wg] [Voting Period Begins]: SC65: Convert EVGs into RFC 3647 format v2

All, Yes, you´re right Dimitris and I was also a bit confused but I think I know what has happened. These changes are over version 2.0.2 as you can check in the PR but when created the comparing link I was copying the latest ones I was using since we started the ballot discussion, over las

Re: [Servercert-wg] Compromised/Weak Keys Ballot Proposal

Hi Wayne, Thank you for carrying this work item forward. I have a few concerns regarding the proposed removal of Debian weak key checking, outlined below. I don’t believe there has been sufficient explanation or data presented to justify the removal of the requirement to check for Debian weak k