Russ and I are working with IETF on getting an expert appointed. -Tim
> -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Hoffman <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2018 11:49 AM > To: Rob Stradling <[email protected]>; CA/B Forum Server Certificate WG > Public Discussion List <[email protected]> > Cc: Tim Hollebeek <[email protected]>; CA/Browser Forum Public > Discussion List <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Ext] [Servercert-wg] Voting Begins: SC13 version 5: CAA > Contact Property and Associated E-mail Validation Methods > > <decloaking for a moment of IETF process discussion> > > > On Dec 20, 2018, at 8:32 AM, Rob Stradling via Servercert-wg <servercert- > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > Sectigo votes NO. > > > > We don't object to the idea behind this ballot, and we don't have any > > specific objections to the content of this ballot either. However, the > > IETF has a process for defining new CAA properties, and this process > > needs to be followed. > > > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6844#section-7.2 says: > > "Addition of tag identifiers requires a public specification and > > Expert Review as set out in [RFC6195], Section 3.1.1." > > > > The BRs is a "public specification", certainly. However, *before* the > > new CAA property proposed by this ballot can become enshrined as a > > requirement in the BRs: > > 1. An application for "Expert Review" must be submitted > > and > > 2. An "approved" response from the designated Expert must be received > > > > Since IANA has not yet assigned any Expert(s) to the caa-properties > > registry [1], it's clear that the required "Expert Review" has not yet > > occurred. > > > > > > [1] > > https://www.iana.org/assignments/pkix-parameters/pkix- > parameters.xhtml#caa-properties > > It is worthwhile noting the paragraph of RFC 6844 immediately after the one > quoted above: > > The tag space is designed to be sufficiently large that exhausting > the possible tag space need not be a concern. The scope of Expert > Review SHOULD be limited to the question of whether the specification > provided is sufficiently clear to permit implementation and to avoid > unnecessary duplication of functionality. > > Even though there is not yet an expert reviewer (which is odd, given that > they've had almost six years to make that assignment), this text makes it > sound like the registration in this ballot would very likely be accepted, and if > it wasn't, an appeal would almost certainly win. > > If this ballot passes, someone from CABForum should send a message to the > IESG saying "there was no reviewer, we added a property that we think > meets the requirements, and as soon as you assign an expert reviewer > (cough cough) we will submit this to the registry". > > --Paul Hoffman
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
