On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 11:45 AM Ryan Sleevi <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 1:37 PM Wayne Thayer <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I agree that we should exclude identity validation from the initial scope >> of this working group. >> >> On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 10:04 AM Ryan Sleevi via Public < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> Finally, regarding membership criteria, I'm curious whether it's >>> necessary to consider WebTrust for CAs / ETSI at all. For work like this, >>> would it make sense to merely specify the requirements for a CA as one that >>> is trusted for and actively issues S/MIME certificates that are accepted by >>> a Certificate Consumer. This seems to be widely inclusive and can be >>> iterated upon if/when improved criteria are developed, if appropriate. >>> >>> This would allow a CA that is not eligible for full Forum membership to >> join this WG as a full member. How would that work? Would we require such >> an organization to join the Forum as an Interested Party? If the idea is >> that such an organization wouldn't be required to join the Forum, then I >> don't believe that was anticipated or intended in the design of the current >> structure. It's not clear to me that we should permit membership in a CWG >> without Forum membership. For instance, allowing this may create loopholes >> in the IPR obligations that are defined and administered at the Forum level. >> > > Ah, drat, thanks for pointing that out, Wayne. You're right that the > changes would need to be accompanied by changes the Forum-level bylaws > membership, whether to be more explicit (e.g. government issuers w/ their > own audit frameworks, as an example, such as the FPKI) or more implicitly > inclusive as this proposed. Absent a Bylaw change, it sounds like the most > such folks could achieve would be Interested Party in the CWG. Does that > match your understanding? > I'm not aware of anything that requires membership in a CWG to be at a level equivalent to that of the Forum, but I do think that is the intent of the bylaws. There may be no harm in having an Interested Party at the Forum level be a full member of a CWG, but I think it would be best for that to be clarified in the bylaws before creating a CWG with looser membership criteria than the Forum.
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
