**Can you explain why you didn’t stop issuance while the determination of the significance of the unreviewed code was being determined?** It seems like there was a point at which LE was in the state “we know that unreviewed code went out but we don’t yet know what that code’s impact was”, and that issuance in that state is inappropriate. That more minor point aside, I must as they say sigh and draw my katana to ask: **why isn’t this a revocation event?** Certificates were issued under a CPS saying that a practice was followed, and for a period of time that practice wasn’t followed correctly. That sounds like a classic misissuance-requiring-revocation scenario to me, even given recent discussions about possibly reducing the need for revocation in the case of certain kinds of CPS-truth error.
Bug 1972745 Comment 1 Edit History
Note: The actual edited comment in the bug view page will always show the original commenter’s name and original timestamp.
**Can you explain why you didn’t stop issuance while the determination of the significance of the unreviewed code was being determined?** It seems like there was a point at which LE was in the state “we know that unreviewed code went out but we don’t yet know what that code’s impact was”, and that issuance in that state is inappropriate (even if issuance was OK once the nature of the code had been analyzed, about which…) That more minor point aside, I must as they say sigh and draw my katana to ask: **why isn’t this a revocation event?** Certificates were issued under a CPS saying that a practice was followed, and for a period of time that practice wasn’t followed correctly. That sounds like a classic misissuance-requiring-revocation scenario to me, even given recent discussions about possibly reducing the need for revocation in the case of certain kinds of CPS-truth error.