[cabfpub] Policy Review Working Group's Pre-Ballot to Clarify Use of "CA"

Dimitris Zacharopoulos jimmy at it.auth.gr
Thu Feb 9 15:29:56 UTC 2017

Thank you for the comments Gerv. We had a Policy Review WG today and 
decided that it would be more clear and consistent if we used the terms 
"Root CA Operator" and "Subordinate CA Operator" throughout the 
document. That would make perfectly clear that we are referring to the 
"CA" as an organization. We will update the draft ballot to include this 

For section 6.2.6, we decided to keep the "Issuing" part. This will also 
be updated in the draft ballot.

Ben will circulate the updated draft ballot for further review by 
members, and the official ballot will be submitted to the public list as 
*ballot 188*, on Thursday February 16th after the regular CA/B Forum 
teleconference. We welcome any comments from members.

Best regards,

On 25/1/2017 7:21 μμ, Gervase Markham via Public wrote:
> On 19/01/17 16:44, Ben Wilson via Public wrote:
>> The Policy Review Working Group has completed its review of the
>> Baseline Requirements for purposes of clarifying use of the term "CA"
>> and related terminology.  Please review and comment on the following
>> pre-ballot.  A redlined version of the Baseline Requirements is
>> attached to facilitate your review and comment.
> Thanks to the group for ploughing through this.
> * There is now a "Root CA Operator", and a "Subordinate CA", both of
> which are organizations. This is particularly clear in the definition of
> "Certification Authority", where it says:
>> The term applies equally to Root CA Operators and Subordinate CAs.
> Is there a reason why these two terms were not made linguistically
> parallel - i.e. either "Root CA" and "Subordinate CA", or "Root CA
> Operator" and "Subordinate CA Operator"?
> * 6.2.6: Some but not all instances of the word "Issuing" have been
> removed. Is that intentional?
>> I did want to highlight one of the proposed changes that is not
>> related to "CA" terminology.   That proposed change is in Section
>> 4.9.10.
> This change seems fine to me.
> Gerv
> _______________________________________________
> Public mailing list
> Public at cabforum.org
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20170209/a9098587/attachment-0002.html>

More information about the Public mailing list