On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 12:42 PM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) < dzach...@harica.gr> wrote:
> > > On 8/2/2019 6:34 μ.μ., Ryan Sleevi wrote: > > > > On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 3:19 AM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) via Public < > public@cabforum.org> wrote: > >> >> I made the following updates in addition to Wayne's: >> >> - Added a process for Interested Party application to CWGs as it >> seemed to be missing from the Bylaws. The only reference we currently have >> is on the web site (https://cabforum.org/email-lists/). >> - For the Server Certificate Working Group membership criteria, I >> tried to align with section 8.4 of the BRs. >> >> I'm hoping this is unintentional, but this is not a good change. This has > been discussed repeatedly in the Forum, and moving to a more restrictive > policy for membership in the charter has been regularly rejected. > > > I don't recall Members being against it for membership criteria, because > it was discussed in the past without objections. This was for consistency > with ETSI because ETSI EN 319 411-1 includes the baseline requirements and > network security guidelines where WebTrust for CAs does not. This change > better aligns the two schemes and was discussed in ballot 223 > <https://cabforum.org/2018/05/16/ballot-223-update-br-section-8-4-for-caaudit-criteria/>. > Do other Members have similar concerns with this issue? I would appreciate > it if others can also state their objection and concerns with this change. > I'll dig up the multiple past discussions of concerns. > My hope is that, as proposer of those changes on the doc, you can go > through and reject them or update them to ensure that our current approach > for the SCWG remains as is. > > > Can you explain why there should be a difference between the Baseline > Requirements section 8.4 and the server certificate working group > membership criteria? Since these are accepted in the BRs, it makes sense to > me to also be updated in the Membership criteria for the Server Certificate > Working Group. > I'll dig up the multiple past discussions of concerns.
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list Public@cabforum.org https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public