Skip to content

Revisit High Risk language #597

@CBonnell

Description

@CBonnell

On the 2025-05-29 validation-sc call, it discussed that the High Risk language in the BRs requires that such a process exist, but provides no further guidance.

It was discussed whether this is desirable, or if more prescriptive language be added, or the requirement removed entirely.

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    ballotbaseline-requirementsServer Certificate CWG - Baseline Requirementsev-guidelinesServer Certificate CWG - Extended Validation GuidelinessimpleNon controversial topic ready for ballotvalidation-sc

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    Status

    On Deck

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions