Entrust also understands there may be issues with the ballot which we would 
like to be corrected.

Entrust changes our vote to NO.

Thanks, Bruce.

-----Original Message-----
From: Public [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Gervase Markham 
via Public
Sent: Wednesday, March 1, 2017 11:08 AM
To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <[email protected]>; Ryan Sleevi 
<[email protected]>
Cc: Gervase Markham <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 188 - Clarify use of term "CA" in Baseline 
Requirements

On 01/03/17 07:02, Dimitris Zacharopoulos via Public wrote:
> I can't imagine that Mozilla, Entrust, Globalsign, Digicert (that 
> already voted "Yes") didn't read through the ballot and didn't 
> consider these misunderstandings.

Your confidence in me is heartwarming :-), but sadly misplaced. I didn't notice 
the issues which Ryan and Peter have raised, but having reread this thread 
fairly carefully, I can see that they have a point.
Particularly about the OCSP/"good" thing, which seems like a serious bug.

I hope that you won't see it as a denigration of your hard work on this ballot, 
but I'm afraid we have to change our vote.

Mozilla now votes NO.

I would like to make a concrete suggestion as to the way forward. It seems to 
me like this very important task of fixing the BRs and other documents to have 
consistent language falls into two parts:

a) making a sane and consistent set of definitions; and
b) making the document use them consistently.

Might it make sense to do a) as the full Forum, and get agreement on the 
definition set, before re-attempting b)? And when b) is re-attempted, we may 
find that it's impossible in some cases to express what the BRs currently say 
using the sane and consistent set of definitions created in a). This is likely 
to be a bug in the BRs. We can then decide on a case-by-case basis whether to 
craft "custom language" to keep the bug and fix it later, or have the ballot 
fix the bug as well as fixing the language.

It may actually be that the work of a) turns into an RFC 7719-like document for 
the WebPKI.

Gerv
_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
[email protected]
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
[email protected]
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public

Reply via email to