On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 3:28 PM Tim Hollebeek <tim.holleb...@digicert.com> wrote:
> Because diverse and sometimes even contradictory root program requirements > are not a good thing. It seems like we should be able to reach agreement > on what the minimum criteria should be, just as we have for TLS. > I'm not sure which part you're replying to, but the diversity of audit requirements is already something we already have with TLS, and I don't see any signs of that changing. Perhaps you can help me understand how a normative membership requirement on audits furthers that goal. > > > -Tim > > > > *From:* Ryan Sleevi <sle...@google.com> > *Sent:* Monday, January 28, 2019 3:14 PM > *To:* Tim Hollebeek <tim.holleb...@digicert.com> > *Cc:* Wayne Thayer <wtha...@mozilla.com>; CA/Browser Forum Public > Discussion List <public@cabforum.org> > *Subject:* Re: [cabfpub] Draft SMIME Working Group Charter > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 2:44 PM Tim Hollebeek <tim.holleb...@digicert.com> > wrote: > > I’m fine with “or equivalent” exceptions for various use cases, as long as > we specify what those are and they accomplish the same goals. I do have > strong opinions about how “*.gov” should be managed, specifically that I > don’t think it’s possible to assure that the domain portion of the email is > being consistently validated, absent some oversight by some independent > entity. > > > > I suppose this will be a core part of the discussion, then. I will, > however, note that ICANN has adopted a very different philosophy than you > with respect to domain names, and similarly, Microsoft has recognized the > distinction with how they manage their program. This also aligns with a > variety of other technology and non-technology sectors, and is, perhaps, a > core part of disagreement. > > > > Could you help me understand why, for purposes of CA/B Forum membership, > you believe they should be overseen by someone that the CA/B Forum > designates, rather than by an entity that a root program designates? > Perhaps I'm missing why it's important to exclude these parties from the > Forum, as that might help clarify the language. >
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list Public@cabforum.org https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
