Inconsistency between Subscriber Agreement and the CP/CPS

[sabrinaorsomething]

I noticed an inconsistency in the defintion of what are "application requiring fail-safe performance" for the prohibited certificate uses between the Subscriber Agreement (version 1.3) and the CP/CPS (version 5.2).

In the Subscribe Agreement (see section 3.6) the final item in the list is "any other systems, the failure of which would reasonably be expected to lead to bodily injury, death or property damage."

In the CP/CPS (see section 1.4.2) on the other hand, it says "any other system in which failure could lead to injury, death, or environmental damage." (Especially note the difference between proerty damage and environmental damage.)

Additionaly I'm not sure if this is intended, but the Subscriber Agreement also does not mention the second bullet point of Prohibited Certificate Uses in the CP/CPS (which prohibits use in "facilities for interference with encrypted communications").

[aarongable]

Hi @sabrinaorsomething, and welcome to the community forum!

Thank you for pointing this out, you’re absolutely right that there are inconsistencies here. We intend to unify the language between the two documents in the next version of our Subscriber Agreement.