This proposed charter is not too different than the validation subcommittee charter. If I recall correctly, subcommittees were intended to be more flexible in order to achieve their chartered goal. Initially I thought of including language from the NetSec conclusions document about the risk-based approach and so on, but then I thought that as we go along the way, that might change (or not) if better proposals are introduced in the subcommittee.
Dimitris. On 23/7/2018 6:22 πμ, Ryan Sleevi wrote: > This feels like a very weak proposed charter. > > Can you set something more on the concrete deliverables - what are the > milestones used to measure progress and focus efforts, how will they > be evaluated, and when will they be expected? > > Given the seeming difficulty the previous group had with staying on > charter and delivering meaningful work product, this seems even more > essential to identify and discuss. A good charter isn't about > describing the borders of the kingdom, but about where the lines of > the roads are, and where the destinations are, so that the > subcommittee can know and describe how to get from Point A to Point B > safely and without running off cliffs. > > On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 5:48 PM Kirk Hall via Public > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > That looks much better then what I posted – I agree. > > > > *From:*Dimitris Zacharopoulos [mailto:[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>] > *Sent:* Sunday, July 22, 2018 10:39 AM > *To:* Kirk Hall <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>; CA/Browser Forum Public > Discussion List <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > *Subject:* [EXTERNAL]Re: [cabfpub] Draft Ballot to establish new > SCWG Network Security Subcommittee > > > > Kirk, > > About the NetSec Subcommittee, I believe we should take into > account the conclusion paragraph of the deliverable > <https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2018-June/013587.html> > published on June 22nd 2018. The conclusion was not to "scrap" the > NetSec Guidelines. I propose the following: > > --- BEGIN --- > > The Server Certificate Working Group formally establishes the > *Network Security Subcommittee* as an official Subcommittee. > > *Scope: *Revising and improving the Network and Certificate > Systems Security Requirements (NCSSRs). > > *Out of Scope: *No provision. > > *Deliverables: *The Network Security Subcommittee shall produce > one or more documents offering options to the Forum for > establishing minimal security standards within the scope defined > above. These renewed NCSSR documents will serve CAs, auditors and > browsers in giving a state of the art set of rules for the > deployment and operation of CAs computing infrastructures. > > *Within the scope of the SCWG Charter:* Yes > > *End Date: *None > > --- END--- > > Best regards, > Dimitris. > > On 22/7/2018 4:47 πμ, Kirk Hall via Public wrote: > > No matter what procedure we choose for establishing new SCWG > Subcommittees, we will need a formal scope for each > Subcommittee. This is a first draft of such a scope for the > Network Security Subcommittee. > > > > The existing Network Security WG was created by Ballot 203. > > https://cabforum.org/2017/06/19/ballot-203-formation-network-security-working-group > I have slightly modified the language of that ballot to > create a SCWG Subcommittee – this would be the language of a > Ballot. Please offer edits – simpler is better. We can try > to finalize on our SCWG teleconference on July 26. > > > > Because the previous Working Group had a sunset date, I added > a sunset of Sept. 1, 2020 (two years). > > > > > > The Server Certificate Working Group formally establishes the > *_Network Security Subcommittee_* as an official Subcommittee > of the SCWG. > > > > *Scope*: Consider options for revising, replacing or scrapping > the Network Security Guidelines. > > > > *Out of Scope: * No provision. > > * * > > *Deliverables*: *Deliverables*: > > 1. Reports with one or more proposals for the future of the > Network Security Guidelines. > > 2. For proposals involving replacement, details of the > availability and applicability of the proposed alternative, > and what modifications if any would be needed to it in order > to make it suitable for use. > > 3. For proposals involving revision, details of the revisions > that are deemed necessary and how the document will be kept > current in the future. > > 4. For proposals involving scrapping, an explanation of why > this is preferable to either of the other two options. > > 5. If there are multiple proposals, optionally a > recommendation as to which one to pursue and an associated > timeline. > > 6. A form of ballot or ballots to implement any recommendations. > > > > *Within the scope of the SCWG Charter*: Yes > > > > *End Date: *September 1, 2020 > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Public mailing list > > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public > > > > _______________________________________________ > Public mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public >
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
