I know there’s a CAA document going through ACME. Is this also going LAMPS? The ACME WG is already working on account UIR and validation-methods parameters. Given that this represents two of the four parameters suggested during the F2F, should we add the other two there?
From: Public [mailto:public-boun...@cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Jacob Hoffman-Andrews via Public Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2017 12:52 PM To: Phillip <phill...@comodo.com> Cc: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public@cabforum.org> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] CAA working group description On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 11:09 AM, Phillip <phill...@comodo.com <mailto:phill...@comodo.com> > wrote: What somewhat worries me is a situation in which I have ten CABForum members tell me that they really want X in a CABForum group and then I report that into the IETF WG and three people say they have other ideas and there being 3 of them and one of me, they represent the consensus. I agree that this would be a bad outcome, and it's part of why we need to encourage interested CA/Browser Forum members to participate directly in IETF, so they can be heard as part of the consensus.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list Public@cabforum.org https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
