Hi Kirk, While I realize your reply was seeking for more clarification, I think it's important to note that you didn't actually engage with the question I asked. I'm hoping to ask again - could you go into detail why this would be beneficial for discussion?
Thanks On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 12:54 AM, Kirk Hall <[email protected]> wrote: > Why do you think it’s detrimental to discussion – I don’t follow your > logic? > > > > *From:* Ryan Sleevi [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Friday, June 9, 2017 4:49 PM > *To:* CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <[email protected]> > *Cc:* Kirk Hall <[email protected]> > *Subject:* [EXTERNAL]Re: [cabfpub] Send us you list of current problems > with the Network Security Guidelines > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 4:34 PM, Kirk Hall via Public <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Bruce and I will combine all suggestions received and report *anonymously* > to the whole group for a discussion in Berlin. > > > > That seems pretty detrimental to discussion - that is, the anonymous > aspect - unless we're talking about specific audit failures. > > > > Could you go into detail why this would be beneficial for discussion? >
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
