I was asked if I would be the expert when 6844 was in last call. I agreed. I thought I was the expert until it turned out it was never recorded.
Since there is no code space shortage in CAA (by intent), the only real function an expert really needs perform is to point out if there is an existing code point assigned for a purpose (unlikely at this point), suggest a more general approach if something is hyper-specific or advise on style. With six code points assigned (three of which are obsolete), collision is not very likely. From: Public <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Tim Hollebeek via Public Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2018 4:07 PM To: Ryan Sleevi <[email protected]>; CA/B Forum Server Certificate WG Public Discussion List <[email protected]>; Doug Beattie <[email protected]> Cc: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] [Servercert-wg] [Ext] Voting Begins: SC13 version 5: CAA Contact Property and Associated E-mail Validation Methods Thanks Ryan, Your memory matches mine. Unfortunately it might take a little bit of time since the registry was never set up when RFC 6844 passed (I believe this was mentioned in passing in London). I’ll poke people in Prague if it isn’t resolved by then, but the wheels of IETF bureaucracy are slowly grinding forward now. -Tim From: Servercert-wg <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > On Behalf Of Ryan Sleevi via Servercert-wg Sent: Friday, December 21, 2018 1:01 PM To: Doug Beattie <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >; CA/B Forum Server Certificate WG Public Discussion List <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Cc: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Servercert-wg] [Ext] Voting Begins: SC13 version 5: CAA Contact Property and Associated E-mail Validation Methods On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 9:12 AM Doug Beattie via Servercert-wg <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: Rob, Is there any reason we can't submit this to the IESG now saying "we're planning to add a property that we think meets the requirements, and as soon as you assign an expert reviewer we will submit this to the registry"? It's unfortunate this question wasn't raised earlier, To be fair to Rob, this issue has been raised in the past. This was discussed in the Validation WG as far back as London [1][2] as to the order of operations. In that plan, Tim stated his intent to do exactly what Rob suggested, and what the process would have been - to either publish an I-D in the IETF or as an appendix in the BRs, to discuss with IANA for Expert Review, and then adopt as permissible within the BRs. This ballot combines those first and third steps and skips the second. This omission seemed deliberate and intentional, as captured in the past discussion [3], but perhaps there was some confusion in those statements. To be clear, though, the ordering requirement that Rob's highlighting here did continue to come up [4], as well as commitments to engage the IANA process. [1] https://cabforum.org/2018/06/06/minutes-for-ca-browser-forum-f2f-meeting-44-london-6-7-june-2018/ [2] https://cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/2018-June/000915.html [3] https://cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/2018-July/000960.html with the counter-point and concerns at https://cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/2018-July/000962.html [4] https://cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/2018-August/000990.html
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
