SC-1XX EVG Cleanup and BR Sync - #680
Conversation
| | UTC(k) | National realization of Coordinated Universal Time | | ||
|
|
||
| ### 1.6.3 References | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I suggest to add "No stipulation." instead of leaving the section blank.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks, Roman. I don't disagree but it was decided years ago, for reasons I no longer recall, that CA/B Forum documents would simply leave blank sections blank. If we decide we want to change that I have no objection but would prefer that it be done by a singular "Add 'No stipulation'," ballot.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sorry, I wasn't aware of that decision. I just read the TLS BR 1.1 where it says: "However, rather than beginning with a “no stipulation” comment in all empty sections, the CA/Browser Forum is leaving such sections initially blank until a decision of “no stipulation” is made." and thought that this would be applicable here since we explicitly removed the refernces... But I'm in no way insisting. 😉
2 participants
Redline for ballot SC-1XX (EVG Cleanup and BR Sync). The Guidelines for the Issuance and Management of Extended Validation Certificates (EV Guidelines) incorporate the Baseline Requirements by reference, so this ballot removes EV Guidelines text that duplicates, contradicts, or has fallen behind the Baseline Requirements, and migrates the Extended Validation (EV) certificate profile from EV Guidelines Section 7 into Baseline Requirements Section 7, including the subject attribute rules, the cabfOrganizationIdentifier extension, and Appendices G and H. The EV Guidelines that remain are a validation-methods document.