G'day Gerv, is it permissible to change the ballot applicability date without invalidating the ballot? I thought Ryan indicated earlier this week it was not possible to change anything once the ballot process had started...??
Can someone please clarify? Regards, -Scott On 2/11/2017 9:49 PM, Gervase Markham via Public wrote: > On 09/02/17 21:08, Ryan Sleevi via Public wrote: >> Ballot 185 - Limiting the Lifetime of Certificates >> >> The following motion has been proposed by Ryan Sleevi of Google, Inc and >> endorsed by Josh Aas of ISRG and Gervase Markham of Mozilla to introduce > > Having endorsed this, I confess I was thinking more about the maximum > certificate lifetime (which I do support as a target we need to get to, > and soon) than about the lead time - which, by the time this ballot > passes, will be about 2 months and a week. Given the level of ongoing > engagement with the question, having agreed to endorse I was also a > little surprised to see us enter the formal discussion period so soon. > > In one sense, the argument that "this is just a change of a number in > some certificate profiles" is right. In another sense, I accept that it > does take time to adjust customer expectations, even if the different > action required by said customer may be a year or more in the future. > While it might be argued CAs should have asked their customers about the > potential impact of this change after previous discussions, it's not > reasonable to suggest that they should have been preparing them for its > enactment before any ballot was passed. > > There are some ways a lifetime ballot might be constructed to ease this > difficulty, some of which even keep a May date for this first step, but > they are not in the realm of the sort of minor adjustment historically > permitted to ballots during the formal discussion period. > > I therefore request that the applicability date in this ballot be > changed from 1st May 2017 to, at the earliest, 24th August 2017, 6 > months after the ballot voting end date. 6 months has been floated > before as a reasonable lead time for high-impact changes, so I hope this > will remove that point of objection even for those who feel this change > is high-impact. > > As the voting period begins on Thu/Fri next week, I hope we can apply > this change soon, and continue from there with a process of thoughtful > listening and discussion on that basis. > > Gerv > _______________________________________________ > Public mailing list > [email protected] > https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public > -- Scott Rea, MSc, CISSP Ph# (801) 874-4114 _______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
