I can't read your mind as to what you want - but I can tell you the problems with what you're presenting and why they're fundamentally problematic.
We don't need a chair, and I think that unless you're specifically invested in resolving this, perhaps you shouldn't be proposing a ballot for it. I've tried to explain why what you're proposing is problematic to the point of opposing - I'd like to try to find something that's viable to support, but that requires your own help in finding a solution. It's not at all productive to suggest you won't take any part of that. On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 7:38 PM Kirk Hall <[email protected]> wrote: > Ryan – that’s not terribly useful if it leaves us with “nothing left”. > > > > Can you please present a draft ballot to establish a NetSec Subcommittee > that you think is correct? That’s really the only thing that will be > useful. > > > > *From:* Ryan Sleevi [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Thursday, September 13, 2018 3:48 PM > *To:* Kirk Hall <[email protected]> > *Cc:* CABFPub <[email protected]> > *Subject:* [EXTERNAL]Re: [cabfpub] Ballot SC10 – Establishing the Network > Security Subcommittee of the SCWG > > > > I think that, without incorporating or responding to feedback, we will be > opposed to this ballot. I agree that it's unfortunate we have gotten > nowhere - but it's equally unfortunate to have spent two months without > responding to any of the substance of the issues. It's great to see > progress, but making small steps doesn't excuse leaving glaring issues. > It's better to let these fall down than to support them with fundamental > flaws. > > > > Concrete feedback is: > > Delete: "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." > > Rationale: That presumes this output will be valid/valuable. > > > > Delete: "The Subcommittee may choose its own initial Chair." > > Rationale: Subcommittees don't have Chairs and votes. They're just > meetings of the CWG with focus. > > > > Delete: "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, which may be used to modify the > existing NCSSRs." > > Rationale: This is a pretty much a non-scope as worded, but worse, > precludes some of the very activities you want to do. For example, > reforming existing requirements doesn't establish minimums, so is out of > scope. > > > > Obviously, that leaves you with nothing left. Hopefully there's something > concrete you think should remain, and you can suggest improvements there. > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 6:24 PM Kirk Hall <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On this ballot and Ballot SC10, I’m only going to consider comments and > criticisms that propose specific alternate language that you will support. > We have spent two months on creation of Subcommittees that simply continue > the work we have been doing., and getting nowhere. Time to finish up! > > > > Do you have specific alternate ballot language you want the Members to > consider? If so, please post. > > > > *From:* Ryan Sleevi [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Thursday, September 13, 2018 2:55 PM > *To:* Kirk Hall <[email protected]>; CABFPub < > [email protected]> > *Subject:* [EXTERNAL]Re: [cabfpub] Ballot SC10 – Establishing the Network > Security Subcommittee of the SCWG > > > > On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 5:25 PM Kirk Hall via Public <[email protected]> > wrote: > > *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, which may be used to > modify the existing NCSSRs. 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. The > Subcommittee may choose its own initial Chair. > > > > Is this Deliverable correct? Is that scope correct? The previous WG > produced (only after significant prodding) a statement about 'options' - > which was to modifying the existing NCSSRs. It seems like we're talking now > about concrete recommendations for changes, and it seems more relevant to > note what is in scope or out of scope. > > > > I disagree that the deliverable affirmatively stating "will serve CA, > auditors, and browsers". > > > > However, there's other, more fundamental problems. Most notable is that > Subcommittees aren't established to have Chairs - the point of the rework > of the Bylaws was to make it clearer what activities are done and how they > fit, and a SCWG subcommittee is just that - a subgroup of the SCWG. The > other is that the SCWG does not yet have a defined process for the > establishment of subcommittees. > >
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
