Based on my recollection of the Guangzhou discussion, and supported by the minutes, the "path forward agreed to in Guangzhou" was that we would take this charter to a ballot without further attempts to resolve the issue of including identity in the charter's scope. There does not appear to be a path to consensus on this issue, despite the considerable amount of time spent discussing it. I'm unhappy with this approach, but as one of the endorsers, I don't see an alternative other than "take it to a vote" that gets this much-needed WG formed any time soon.
- Wayne On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 3:22 PM Ryan Sleevi via Public <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Tim, > > Could you point to where that's reflected in the minutes? Our > understanding here at Google is that Apple's proposed changes, which we > support and would be unable to participate without incorporating, is that > it accurately and correctly reflects the discussions in London [1], > reiterated in Cupertino [2], and agreed upon in Thessaloniki [3]. It > appears that, following that, the proposers of that ballot ignored that > consensus and conclusion, and yet the discussion of Guangzhou [4] does not > indicate there was consensus to do so. > > I'm hoping we've just overlooked something in the minutes, but Apple's > proposed changes seem imminently reasonable, and a worthwhile path to > drafting requirements that consuming software, such as mail clients (both > native and Web), can use and consume as part of their root programs, as an > alternative to their root-program-specific requirements. > > [1] > https://cabforum.org/2018/06/06/minutes-for-ca-browser-forum-f2f-meeting-44-london-6-7-june-2018/#New-SMIME-Working-Group-Charter > [2] > https://cabforum.org/2019/05/03/minutes-for-ca-browser-forum-f2f-meeting-46-cupertino-12-14-march-2019/#Creation-of-additional-Working-Groups---Secure-Mail > "Dean – We have a blank slate here and it seems the reluctance was to > make it a narrow scope and then focus on either one aspect of SMIME. First > task might be how to validate an email, and then focus on identity > validation. Some comments were to make the chart narrow to focus on one > task while others say to include all proposed tasks to not have to > recharter which has caused issues in the past." > [3] > https://cabforum.org/2019/08/16/minutes-for-ca-browser-forum-f2f-meeting-47-thessaloniki-12-13-june-2019/#Creation-of-Additional-Groups---Secure-Mail > "Eventually, all parties in the conversation came to the conclusion that > it would behoove the Forum to scope the working group charter to domain > validation, first, before adding other functionality once that portion was > locked-down." > [4] > https://cabforum.org/2019/12/12/minutes-for-ca-browser-forum-f2f-meeting-48-guangzhou-5-7-november-2019/#Creation-of-Additional-Groups---Secure-Mail > > > _______________________________________________ > Public mailing list > [email protected] > https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public >
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
