On 17/9/2018 10:39 πμ, InigoBarreira wrote:
Dimitris, I´m Ok and you have now 2 endorsers, but why still the "or"?
There´s no options.
It's "Webtrust or...."
Dimitris.
Regards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*De:* Mads Egil Henriksveen [[email protected]]
*Enviado:* lunes, 17 de septiembre de 2018 7:00
*Para:* Moudrick M. Dadashov; CA/B Forum Server Certificate WG Public
Discussion List; Dimitris Zacharopoulos; CA/Browser Forum Public
Discussion List; InigoBarreira
*Asunto:* RE: [Servercert-wg] [cabfpub] Ballot FORUM-4 v2
I will endorse.
Regards
Mads
*From:*Servercert-wg <[email protected]> *On Behalf
Of *Moudrick M. Dadashov via Servercert-wg
*Sent:* mandag 17. september 2018 01:05
*To:* Dimitris Zacharopoulos <[email protected]>; CA/Browser Forum
Public Discussion List <[email protected]>; InigoBarreira
<[email protected]>; CA/B Forum Server Certificate WG Public Discussion
List <[email protected]>
*Subject:* Re: [Servercert-wg] [cabfpub] Ballot FORUM-4 v2
This is your first endorser.
Thanks,
M.D.
On 9/16/2018 9:06 PM, Dimitris Zacharopoulos via Public wrote:
Hi Inigo,
Tim has withdrawn the changes to ETSI because his main goal is to
just fix the Bylaws with the language of Ballot 206. The risk of
CAs using the old TS standards is already very high and we should
not wait any longer to fix this. I'd be happy to propose a new
ballot to fix the ETSI language for the Bylaws and the SCWG charter.
I will propose replacing:
"or ETSI TS 102042, ETSI 101456, or ETSI EN 319 411-1"
with "or ETSI EN 319 411-1".
That's the only change I am currently willing to propose/endorse.
Looking for two endorsers.
Thanks,
Dimitris.
On 14/9/2018 10:06 πμ, InigoBarreira via Servercert-wg wrote:
Tim,
I´d remove all mentions to ETSI TS documents (102 042 and 101
456) in all CABF documents. These TSs have not been updated
for years, they don´t reflect the current requirements of the
CABF.
Regards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*De:*Servercert-wg [[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>] en nombre de Tim
Hollebeek via Servercert-wg [[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>]
*Enviado:* jueves, 13 de septiembre de 2018 20:46
*Para:* Tim Hollebeek; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion
List; Ryan Sleevi; [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
*Asunto:* Re: [Servercert-wg] Ballot FORUM-4 v2
As discussed on the Validation WG call, this unfortunately is
probably not going to be possible for this particular ballot.
Ben did a lot of work to get the current redlined document to
accurately reflect what the Bylaws were intended to be at this
point.
In the attached version 3, I’ve corrected a typo that was left
behind after I reverted the ETSI changes. I would urge a few
people to take a close look at it and make sure there are no
additional errors …
I’ll aim to update the ballot (again, sigh…) once I’ve heard
from a few people that it looks good based on analysis that is
independent of mine and Ben’s.
-Tim
*From:* Public <[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Tim
Hollebeek via Public
*Sent:* Thursday, September 13, 2018 9:33 AM
*To:* Ryan Sleevi <[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
*Cc:* CABFPub <[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject:* Re: [cabfpub] [Servercert-wg] Ballot FORUM-4 v2
I’m highly sympathetic to that, especially with a document as
important as the Bylaws. I’ve had the same concern as well as
I look through Ben’s redline. After looking at it closer on
the plane last night, I have some concerns about what appear
to be some changes to cross-references that appear correct,
but I’m not sure if they’re needed.
I will also note that I have previously pointed out that
according to the Bylaws, redlines are REQUIRED, but cannot be
trusted in any way, shape, or form, as our Bylaws clearly
state they are ignored for the purposed of updating the
requirements. Yet everyone seems to want to review the
redlines, not the ballot text. As I’ve pointed out several
times, creating an additional representation of the changes
that is required but cannot be trusted doesn’t help anyone.
This is really, really silly, and I wish people were more
vocal and active in finding a solution to it that works for
everyone. And no, I don’t want to discuss what tools or
processes should be used to produce redlines.
Each ballot should have one and only one official
representation of the proposed changes, and no alternative
unofficial changes should be required. I’ve circulated
several proposals, but I really don’t care about the details,
as long as the problem is solved.
In this case, I think I’m going to look and see if the Ballot
Text from 216 applies cleanly to the latest Bylaws, and
produce a redline based on that.
-Tim
*From:* Ryan Sleevi <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
*Sent:* Thursday, September 13, 2018 2:15 AM
*To:* Tim Hollebeek <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>;
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*Cc:* CABFPub <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
*Subject:* Re: [Servercert-wg] Ballot FORUM-4 v2
Tim,
I believe there had been a previous suggestion to provide this
as a clearer redline, rather than an "Adopt Document X". Can
you clarify that?
By presenting it as you have, it's going to create more work
to even make sure that the formatting of the document -
claiming to be a redline - actually matches to the last
canonical version, and that the changes you've highlighted in
red, are, well the changes to be made.
I hope you can understand why that's more difficult, because
it requires wholesale comparison rather than taking the
previous version and showing how it would be corrected.
On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 9:20 PM Tim Hollebeek via
Servercert-wg <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Ballot FORUM-4 v2: Fix mistakes made during passage of
Governance Reform Ballot 206
Purpose of Ballot
The Governance Reform ballot (Ballot 206 under the old
ballot numbering scheme) was extremely complicated and
took roughly two years to draft.
The changes to the Bylaws from Ballot 216 were intended to
be included in the Governance Reform ballot, but were
accidentally not included.
The attached version of the Bylaws restores the important
discussion period changes that were approved by the
members but then accidentally overwritten.
The following motion has been proposed by Tim Hollebeek of
DigiCert and endorsed by Wayne Thayer of Mozilla and
Moudrick Dadashov of SSC.
--- MOTION BEGINS ---
This ballot replaces the “Bylaws of the CA/Browser Forum”
version 1.9 with version 2.0 of those Bylaws, attached to
this ballot.
--- MOTION ENDS ---
The procedure for approval of this ballot is as follows:
Discussion (7 days)
Start Time: 2018-09-12, 9:30 pm Eastern Time
End Time: 2018-09-19, 9:30 pm Eastern Time
Vote for approval (7 days)
Start Time: 2018-09-19, 9:30 pm Eastern Time
End Time: 2018-09-26, 9:30 pm Eastern Time
_______________________________________________
Servercert-wg mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/servercert-wg
_______________________________________________
Servercert-wg mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/servercert-wg
_______________________________________________
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
