I support Tim's comment. I think the scope of this charter is much too restrictive. For example, consider Baseline Requirements section 4.1.2 (“the CA SHALL obtain… an executed Subscriber Agreement”). I don’t think the working group charter would allow discussion of such a section; it doesn’t fall under any of the items specifically mentioned as part of the Scope, unless you’re going to try to call it a ‘CA operational practice’.
That raises another concern I have with the scope, which is that it is vague, and so likely to lead to unresolvable disputes. For example, suppose someone proposes something like section 6.1.5. I would say this is out of scope, but someone else might say this is part of the certificate profile. Or someone might propose something like section 6.1.7 saying it’s an operational practice of the CA; is it? > On Feb 6, 2019, at 12:19 PM, Tim Hollebeek via Public <[email protected]> > wrote: > > My experience is the reverse. IETF and groups with tight charters get bogged > down in constant discussions about charter revisions. CABF has recently > fallen into the same trap and I don’t think it is a change for the better. > There are other SDOs I participate in where groups have operated for 10+ > years with the same charter, with no downsides other than the fact that they > spend their time discussing and working on the relevant issues instead of > re-chartering every time a new topic comes up.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
