[cabf_validation] Effective date for domain validation ballot

[Doug Beattie]

Either way is good.  I might prefer having an actual date in the ballot like you did with this update.

 

From: Ben Wilson [mailto:ben.wilson at digicert.com] 
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 1:49 PM
To: Doug Beattie; kirk_hall at trendmicro.com; validation at cabforum.org
Subject: RE: Effective date for domain validation ballot

 

Sorry, just got your response and was thinking about this instead: 

 

Effective date: Prior to 1 March 2017,  CAs may use either the domain validation methods of BR 3.2.2.4 as they existed before this ballot was approved, or the domain validation methods as specified in this ballot (as they may subsequently be further amended), or both.  Effective 1 March 2017,  CAs may use only the domain validation methods of BR 3.2.2.4 as specified in this ballot (as such methods may subsequently be further amended).

 

 

From: Doug Beattie [mailto:doug.beattie at globalsign.com] 
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 11:47 AM
To: Ben Wilson <ben.wilson at digicert.com>; kirk_hall at trendmicro.com; validation at cabforum.org
Subject: RE: Effective date for domain validation ballot

 

This sounds good to me.

 

From: validation-bounces at cabforum.org <mailto:validation-bounces at cabforum.org>  [mailto:validation-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Ben Wilson
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 1:33 PM
To: kirk_hall at trendmicro.com <mailto:kirk_hall at trendmicro.com> ; validation at cabforum.org <mailto:validation at cabforum.org> 
Subject: Re: [cabf_validation] Effective date for domain validation ballot

 

Here is Kirk’s proposal.

 

From: validation-bounces at cabforum.org <mailto:validation-bounces at cabforum.org>  [mailto:validation-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of kirk_hall at trendmicro.com <mailto:kirk_hall at trendmicro.com> 
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2016 6:39 PM
To: validation at cabforum.org <mailto:validation at cabforum.org> 
Subject: [cabf_validation] Effective date for domain validation ballot

 

I would suggest this language be added to the draft for the effective date for the changes to BR 3.2.2.4.  I think it reflects what we have discussed.

 

Proposed Effective date: During the six month period after approval of this ballot, CAs may use either the domain validation methods of BR 3.2.2.4 as they existed before this ballot was approved, or the domain validation methods as specified in this ballot (as they may subsequently be further amended), or both.  Effective six months after approval of this ballot, CAs may use only the domain validation methods of BR 3.2.2.4 as specified in this ballot (as such methods may subsequently be further amended).



 
TREND MICRO EMAIL NOTICE
The information contained in this email and any attachments is confidential 
and may be subject to copyright or other intellectual property protection. 
If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to use or 
disclose this information, and we request that you notify us by reply mail or
telephone and delete the original message from your mail system.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/attachments/20160722/a2ad8743/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4289 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : https://cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/attachments/20160722/a2ad8743/attachment.bin