On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 12:12 PM Dean Coclin via Public
wrote:
> 9. Any Other Business
>
> Yoshiro Yoneya asked if anyone had attended the IETF meetings last week.
> Any updates?
>
> Ryan stated that Google, DigiCert (Tim Hollebeek) were involved in the
> LAMPS
> discussion. ACME was covered.
On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 10:36 AM Rob Stradling via Public <
public@cabforum.org> wrote:
> > I don’t think the creation of another WG would be justified or useful
>
> Practically, that may well be the case, but I think it's right to arrive
> at that conclusion by going through this thought process
To make sure I follow the logic here:
EVCS states:
> "These Guidelines describe the minimum requirements that apply to the
> issuance of Extended Validation Code Signing Certificates and EV
> signatures. Certification Authority, Timestamp Authority and Signing
> Authority are all governed by
Hey Stephen,
As I was trying to finish setting up the permissions for repositories
following the separation of repositories [1], I realized I needed to set
the S/MIME Chair and Vice Chair up.
It took me a while to dig through the minutes to find out how that went.
Recall that the S/MIME Charter
Google votes YES on Special Ballot FORUM-16
On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 10:15 PM Dean Coclin via Public
wrote:
> Voting begins on this ballot below:
>
>
>
>
> The following motion has been proposed by the CA/Browser Forum Chair
> Dimitris Zacharopoulos of HARICA.
>
> Purpose of Ballot
>
> This
On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 8:27 PM Aaron Gable via Public
wrote:
> I have just a couple questions, none of which I think are important enough
> to
> count as objections or block this proposal from moving forward:
>
> 1) Has the Infrastructure Subcommittee considered the option of using
> `git
Google votes YES to Ballot FORUM-15
On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 11:11 AM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) via Public
wrote:
>
> Voting begins for Special Ballot Forum-15.
>
> Dimitris.
>
>
> On 2020-09-07 8:53 μ.μ., Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) wrote:
>
>
> The following motion has been proposed
On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 2:17 PM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) <
dzach...@harica.gr> wrote:
>
>
> On 2020-09-16 8:52 μ.μ., Ryan Sleevi wrote:
> > I realize you've provided further context, but my hope is that by
> > laying out the fundamentally wrong assumptions above, which your
> > further
On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 1:30 PM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) <
dzach...@harica.gr> wrote:
> You seem to be conflating my role, as Chair, with HARICA and how HARICA
> evaluates changes in ballots.
>
No, I'm trying to call out that you may be assuming that how HARICA
evaluates Ballots is how
On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 2:12 AM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) <
dzach...@harica.gr> wrote:
>
>
> On 2020-09-16 2:43 π.μ., Ryan Sleevi wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 4:18 PM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) <
> dzach...@harica.gr> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 2020-09-15 9:34 μ.μ., Ryan Sleevi
On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 4:18 PM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) <
dzach...@harica.gr> wrote:
>
>
> On 2020-09-15 9:34 μ.μ., Ryan Sleevi wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 12:25 PM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) <
> dzach...@harica.gr> wrote:
>
>> I think you have a point about A + B, so we
On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 12:25 PM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) <
dzach...@harica.gr> wrote:
> I think you have a point about A + B, so we should have independent review
> periods for each ballot as we did with version 1.6.4 (we had independent
> ballots to be reviewed and then a
On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 4:33 AM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) <
dzach...@harica.gr> wrote:
> On 14/9/2020 8:08 μ.μ., Ryan Sleevi wrote:
>
> Yes, I'm aware of the "what", but it's not clear the "why".
>
> The act of combining ballots is relatively new, as you can see from
>
Yes, I'm aware of the "what", but it's not clear the "why".
The act of combining ballots is relatively new, as you can see from
https://cabforum.org/baseline-requirements-documents/ . Producing multiple
versions of the Guidelines, linear based on when the Ballot concluded, was
something our
Dimitris: Could you explain why it's necessary to integrate?
It seems much better to have Ballot -> Distinct BR version, and there's
nothing in our IP policy I'm aware of that requires you to send them as a
combined review.
On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 4:38 AM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) via
On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 3:05 PM Dean Coclin via Public
wrote:
> As mentioned on today’s call, our team went through the CA/B Forum
> Baseline Requirements, EV Guidelines and Code Signing Guidelines to review
> for names which are being deprecated by the industry. The number found were
> very
On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 4:52 PM Tim Hollebeek via Public
wrote:
> The following ballot is proposed by Tim Hollebeek of DigiCert and endorsed
> by Wayne Thayer of Mozilla and Clint Wilson of Apple.
>
>
>
> Ballot Forum-14: Creation of S/MIME Certificates Working Group
>
>
>
> Purpose of the Ballot
Note: This is missing the feedback from Apple, which landed in
https://github.com/cabforum/documents/pull/167/commits/e6ad111f4477010cbff409cd939c5ac1c7c85ccc
You could probably restart discussion with things as
Oh, and the ballot number will need to be updated - I'm not sure how both
collided on 'FORUM-12' (Dimitris' Bylaws ballot and this)
On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 6:18 PM Ryan Sleevi wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 2:20 PM Tim Hollebeek
> wrote:
>
>> I’m willing to drop the scope statement based
On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 2:20 PM Tim Hollebeek
wrote:
> I’m willing to drop the scope statement based on Thursday’s discussion and
> the addition of the paragraph I suggested to the introduction, which
> describes much of the same thing in a form that seems more acceptable to
> most. Clint and
On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 5:18 PM Tim Hollebeek via Public <
public@cabforum.org> wrote:
> Upon approval of the CAB Forum by ballot in accordance with section 5.3 of
> the Bylaws, the S/MIME Certificates Working Group (“SMWG”) is created to
> perform the activities as specified in the Charter, with
Thanks for checking, Tim. The changes y'all approved are integrated, and so
I think https://github.com/cabforum/documents/pull/167 reflects all
feedback to date.
On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 4:43 PM Tim Hollebeek
wrote:
> Ryan: Any other issues, or shall we get a ballot out for discussion?
>
>
>
>
https://github.com/sleevi/cabforum-docs/pull/17 so that you can comment and
make additional modifications/edits.
In prepping this, I also spotted an issue with the CABF Bylaws that I'll
feed back to Dimitris' ballot
On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 3:27 PM Tim Hollebeek
wrote:
> I think some people
See my earliest comments on the first draft about this -
https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2019-January/014517.html shows the
suggested edit and points to
https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2019-January/014521.html
Finally, regarding membership criteria, I'm curious whether it's necessary
Looking through the resolved and unresolved aspects, the lack of feedback
from you meant we still have one unaddressed matter in the draft:
https://github.com/cabforum/documents/pull/167/files#r392389077
- The proposed draft charter forbids any CA from participating unless they
already have
On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 7:57 PM Tim Hollebeek via Public <
public@cabforum.org> wrote:
>
>
> As I mentioned on the last call, I promised to give an update on the
> S/MIME Charter today. There was a previous draft incorporating Apple’s
> comments, but as that draft was being finalized, a number
t; sign/encrypt email, as a passive processing of the S/MIME parts not
> performing any action is not enough
>
>
> Best,
> Pedro
>
>
>
> On 13 Mar 2020, at 17:21, Ryan Sleevi via Public
> wrote:
>
> Thanks Clint.
>
> We still have a number of concerns
now and
>> I’d be happy to address.
>>
>> Thank you for your patience and understanding in getting this back to the
>> group. Have a great evening!
>> -Clint
>>
>>
>>
>> On Feb 18, 2020, at 1:57 PM, Ryan Sleevi via Public
>> wrote:
>>
>&g
ing comment; if anything is unclear, please let me know and
> I’d be happy to address.
>
> Thank you for your patience and understanding in getting this back to the
> group. Have a great evening!
> -Clint
>
>
>
> On Feb 18, 2020, at 1:57 PM, Ryan Sleevi via Public
> wrote:
>
Hi Dimitris,
There's a lot of changes here, and this will take us quite a bit of time to
digest.
I don't know that we're necessarily supportive of the "Full Member"
definition, and the implications that has. The implicit consequences of
treating Interested Parties as Members of the Forum is not
On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 1:57 PM Tim Hollebeek via Public <
public@cabforum.org> wrote:
>
>- Automatic cessation of membership
>
>
>- The balloted wording around software update cadences introduces some
> precision/definition issues that would likely prove troublesome in and
> of
>
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 ap
On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 2:37 PM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) <
dzach...@harica.gr> wrote:
>
> This was not raised as an issue when the code signing WG was created.
>
That doesn't mean it's not an issue? It just means y'all may not have had
folks review it closely?
> During the kick-off
On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 2:05 PM Wayne Thayer wrote:
> Ryan - Thank you for pointing out the past discussions. it's unfortunate
> that this ballot has lingered for so long and as a result it's possible
> that some of your feedback from a year ago was (unintentionally, I believe)
> "ignored". In
Just to make sure the timing is accurate:
2018-05 - Tim Hollebeek circulates a draft charter, largely modeled after
the code signing charter [1].
2018-06 - F2F 44 provides significant discussion on this issue and the
potential concerns. [2]
2018-07 - Ballot 208 [3] is finalized, which sets forth
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
Hi Tim,
Is there a reason this doesn't follow the template in Exhibit C of our
Bylaws? The differences seem rather significant.
On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 2:39 PM Tim Hollebeek via Public <
public@cabforum.org> wrote:
>
>
> The following ballot is proposed by Tim Hollebeek of DigiCert and endorsed
Capturing notes that were shared off-list by various folks, and reposting
for visibility. Thanks for doing this, Dimitris, as this definitely
highlights the ease to be had of having GitHub, PRs, and automagically
generated PDFs :)
*Requiring Correction*:
Section 1.6.1: This fails to remove the
Hi Jos!
I know things have been quiet here, but I commented a little on the
conversion of the BRs.
I know this was sent to Public, but was it meant to go to servercert-wg@,
since it's for the Server Cert WG? I don't see any of the other documents
being touched/changed.
On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at
On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 2:17 PM Robin Alden wrote:
> Ryan,
>
> Referring back to Dimitris’s reference [1], i.e. your response to Stephan
> Wolf, I think he (Stephan Wolf) probably overstated the forum’s purpose
> somewhat, but your response goes too far in the opposite direction to be
>
On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 1:48 PM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) <
dzach...@harica.gr> wrote:
> I see a conflict because the statement considers a different purpose than
> what is described in section 1.1 of the Bylaws. I was also surprised
> ("shocked" might better describe it) to read that any
On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 1:09 PM Kirk Hall via Public
wrote:
> +1 Dimitris. As the immediate past Chair of the Forum and someone
> involved in creating the Forum in 2005, your analysis below is correct.
>
As I mentioned, this is somewhat ahistorical. For example, this viewpoint
you're sharing
On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 11:54 AM Dimitris Zacharopoulos via Public <
public@cabforum.org> wrote:
>
> Dear CA/B Forum Members,
>
> Recent posts [1], [2] were brought to my attention with a statement from a
> representative of a Certificate Consumer Member who believes that the role
> of the Forum
Google votes Yes to ballot FORUM-10
On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 11:27 AM Jos Purvis (jopurvis) via Public <
public@cabforum.org> wrote:
> The following ballot is proposed by Jos Purvis of Cisco, endorsed by Wayne
> Thayer of Mozilla and Ben Wilson of DigiCert. Voting begins at *2100 UTC
> 30
On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 11:14 AM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) via Public
wrote:
> I probably got confused by processing all the previous discussions, during
> the F2F, teleconferences and the recent discussion on the CA/B Forum
> plenary public list.
>
> Leaving the EV Guidelines change
Dimitris,
I'm a bit surprised you went this way, as I do think it creates more
problems.
On a ballot legitimacy level, I do not believe you can propose a Forum
level ballot to change a Final Maintenance Guideline of a CWG, which you've
done by proposing to use the Forum to change the EV
On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 12:13 PM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) <
dzach...@harica.gr> wrote:
> I deliberately left this out because I would like to discuss the document
> version issue on a separate ballot because I am not sure how controversial
> or not it would be. At this point, I would not
On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 11:36 AM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) via Public <
public@cabforum.org> wrote:
> Dear Members,
>
> Following up on recent discussions,
>
>- At the last F2F in Thessaloniki
>
>
On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 4:10 PM Dean Coclin via Public
wrote:
> The 60 day review period has now passed and no exclusion notices were
> filed. Therefore the draft guideline distributed via this review notice has
> been approved as a CA/B Forum Code Signing Chartered Working Group standard.
>
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 1:35 PM Jeremy Rowley via Public <
public@cabforum.org> wrote:
> I think I heard the WebTrust auditors say last week that they have
> finished or nearly finished the WebTrust for RAs criteria. The language
> from Section 8.4 of the guidelines reads:
>
>
>
> “For Delegated
On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 2:19 PM Dean Coclin via Public
wrote:
> *Voting by Certificate Consumers – 3 votes total including abstentions*
>
>- *4 Yes votes:* Cisco, Microsoft, Opera
>
> Have I miscounted? It seems that there's a lack of agreement in these
counts.
On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 3:24 PM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) <
dzach...@harica.gr> wrote:
> In any case, since this seems to be a controversial matter, I will
> create a new thread in the Server Certificate Working Group public list
> and remove the additional requirements for WebTrust. I hope
Here's some references for some of the past discussions:
You can search for the discussion around Ballot 149, in which Kirk had
proposed changes similar to what you're doing now. There's quite a bit of
discussion on that from various bits, but I suspect
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
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
On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 3:20 PM Tim Hollebeek
wrote:
> My experience is the reverse. IETF and groups with tight charters get
> bogged down in constant discussions about charter revisions.
>
Interesting example. While I do disagree with your conclusions, it's useful
to understand the perspective
On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 12:41 PM Tim Hollebeek
wrote:
> There are many SDOs that I participate in that are able to manage their
> priorities effectively without hardcoding them into a charter. In fact,
> it’s more common than not. In my experience, SDOs that require a
> re-charter every time
On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 4:29 PM Dean Coclin wrote:
> While that’s true, there’s also the risk to that approach in that the
> community feels that topic X is not included in the charter and therefore
> will not be addressed or feel that it’s not important a topic to be
> addressed.
>
>
>
> By
lf Of *Wayne Thayer via Public
> *Sent:* January 25, 2019 1:37 PM
> *To:* Ryan Sleevi ; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion
> List
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL]Re: [cabfpub] Draft SMIME Working Group Charter
>
>
>
> *WARNING:* This email originated outside of Entrust Datacard.
>
On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 2:21 AM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) <
dzach...@harica.gr> wrote:
> I disagree that for S/MIME there is no set of existing rules. ETSI EN 319
> 411-1 (scope LCP, NCP) and AFAIK WebTrust for CAs have been used as
> attestations of adequate level of
On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 12:11 PM Dimitris Zacharopoulos
wrote:
>
>
> On 29/1/2019 4:56 μ.μ., Ryan Sleevi wrote:
>
> This isn't theoretical; at least one CA member provides such audits, as
> they use such a third-party datacenter. If the datacenter provided just
> their report, would they
On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 2:18 AM Dimitris Zacharopoulos
wrote:
>
>
> On 28/1/2019 8:48 μ.μ., Ryan Sleevi via Public wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 2:30 PM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) via Public
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 24/1/
On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 3:28 PM Tim Hollebeek
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
On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 2:44 PM Tim Hollebeek
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
On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 2:17 PM Tim Hollebeek
wrote:
> The intent was that Forum level membership was the union of all CWG
> membership criteria. If you’re able to join a CWG, you’re a Forum member.
>
>
>
> I think allowing in unaudited Certificate Issuers would be a huge step
> backwards.
>
On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 2:30 PM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) via Public <
public@cabforum.org> wrote:
>
>
> On 24/1/2019 8:16 μ.μ., Wayne Thayer via Public wrote:
>
> On today's call we discussed a number of changes to the bylaws aimed at
> clarifying the rules for membership. The proposal for
Thanks for starting this, Ben!
I have a long list of feedback, which I wanted to provide on the list to be
transparent about the motivations and goals, although I'll also duplicate
them as suggested edits on the doc after sending this, to provide more
concrete and hopefully productive guidance.
On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 11:35 AM Doug Beattie via Servercert-wg <
servercert...@cabforum.org> wrote:
>
>
> *This is version 2 of Ballot SC14 with the DNS CAA record method removed.
> Review period reset for full 7 days.*
>
>
>
> Ballot SC14: Updated Phone Validation Methods
>
>
>
> Purpose of
On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 5:45 PM Tim Hollebeek
wrote:
> The IANA registration has already been made and acknowledged by IANA.
> IESG will discuss appointing an expert on their next call.
>
>
>
> I will note that what was ACTUALLY agreed to in London was that work with
> IANA need not obstruct
Doug,
It may be useful to hold off on this Ballot until Tim has performed the
necessary steps for IANA registration, which also involves the Expert
Review. As captured from the ballot discussion, the 'original' or 'agreed'
process was spec -> review -> allow, although ballot SC13 opted for
On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 9:12 AM Doug Beattie via Servercert-wg <
servercert...@cabforum.org> wrote:
> Rob,
>
> Is there any reason we can't submit this to the IESG now saying "we're
> planning to add a property that we think meets the requirements, and as
> soon
> as you assign an expert reviewer
I believe this discussion is for the servercert-wg@ mailing list, right?
On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 10:22 AM Wayne Thayer via Public <
public@cabforum.org> wrote:
> Mozilla is interested in adding EdDSA support to Firefox, but we don't
> currently have the work scheduled. If someone wants to submit
On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 5:05 PM Bruce Morton via Public
wrote:
> Hi Ben,
>
>
>
> I thought that I would provide some input on Code Signing and hopefully it
> will be considered for the charter.
>
>
>
> The public CAs are currently working with two orphaned code signing
> certificate guidelines.
On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 1:04 PM Jeremy Rowley via Public
wrote:
> I would like to discuss whether unaudited Delegated Third Parties are
> permitted under the BRs. My reading of the BRs (combined with what happened
> to Symantec) is that unaudited RAs are, at least mildly, frowned upon by
> the
It should come as no surprise that we support greater transparency, so
thanks for providing these, Dimitris.
As to the role of the Forum Chair, or Chair-Elect, I think perhaps it bears
mentioning that the Forum is not an organization in-and-of-itself - it's
merely a discussion roundtable. To the
On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 12:27 AM Geoff Keating wrote:
> [redirecting discussion to cabfpub]
>
Geoff,
While I'm always one to appreciate public discussion, I want to highlight
that
1) A member already expressed concern with redirecting to our public list
2) Our bylaws make it clear that there's
On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 2:53 AM Geoff Keating wrote:
> Although the details do need work, I support Kirk’s approach here, which
> is that the bylaws should contain a set of default rules which describe
> everything needed to operate a working group or a subcommittee, except for
> the name and
I'm afraid this misunderstands part of the concern.
I believe we've reasonably established that you believe that "Subcommittees
of the Forum" will only talk about "safe" topics, and therefore, you're
asking for specific examples of how talking about something "safe" would be
problematic. You're
Kirk,
I'm afraid that wasn't my question, nor was it a suggestion.
It sounds like you haven't done what was discussed - an evaluation of the
bylaws. I'm hoping you can make a more compelling case that these will
address the issues. One way to make such a compelling case is to highlight
"The
Thanks for proposing this.
It does not seem to address some of the other topics that were discussed,
such as the formation of subcommittees.
We left the discussion with a call to provide a methodical analysis of
where the bylaws defer to a CWGs charter, to provide better example
guidance. Have
On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 1:12 AM Kirk Hall
wrote:
> I think you are mistaken in your first point – there were several people
> who spoke in favor of keeping governance change issues at the Forum level
> in some way (e.g. an informal group Forum members working together, or a
> “Committee of the
On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 11:45 PM Kirk Hall via Public
wrote:
> Here is a possible amendment to the Bylaws that would allow us to create
> Subcommittees of the Forum, and would require the same transparency as is
> required today for the Forum.
>
>
>
> This Bylaws change could be passed by a
Thank you for clarifying that your position.
Considering that it is a prepared presentation, with slides, that
necessarily examines the history of audits so that we can understand "what
was meant", it is appropriate both in chronological order and in the level
of detail to place those sections
Kirk,
I would again like to request that you reschedule 23 and 24 after 25, as
originally, and now repeatedly requested, so that it might be most valuable
for all participants. It has been rather unfortunate the level of
difficulty that has been added - in obtaining an agenda slot, as originally
Thanks Kirk.
While I still express my disagreement with your conclusions and your
scheduling, it's also clear that there's no room to improve the dialog here
or in Shanghai.
On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 3:46 PM Kirk Hall
wrote:
> Thanks for the explanation – that helps, and offers more details than
I'm not sure I understand that question - I've offered several explanations
on the list and the call. Perhaps the confusion is coming from the
conflicting approaches from what was requested to how it'd been originally
scheduled.
I'm not sure when you've spoken with the auditor representatives,
Thanks for clarifying.
That's unfortunate, because having the time following would provide a lot
more flexibility for the representatives to adjust their conversations to
the discussion topics and questions raised, providing greater clarity and
direction. Presuming the presentations are similar
On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 9:20 PM Kirk Hall via Public
wrote:
> Here is an updated Agenda for the Shanghai F2F meeting in just over two
> weeks. The draft is based on time requests from different discussion
> leaders, and as you see the meeting runs too long on Thursday. I am going
> to check
I would actually make a more specific request:
If you use Method 10 for anything other than exactly
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-acme-tls-alpn as specified, please
speak up. If you use https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-acme-tls-alpn ,
please specify what draft revision of that
On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 9:14 PM Kirk Hall via Public
wrote:
> Ryan, I’m glad you referred to our Sept. 20 SCWG teleconference in your
> message below, and what was said there. I went back to listen and I
> prepared draft Minutes on the Shanghai Agenda/audits issues portion. (I’m
> sending
On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 1:59 PM Kirk Hall
wrote:
> I believe topic #3 as I have listed it below fairly presents your request
> on the Sept. 20 teleconference call, as it covers what you said you wanted
> to discuss – “Problems faced by root programs from existing WebTrust/ETSI
> reports and
Kirk,
I appreciate this attempt, but this wasn't what I was requesting. Could you
clarify that you're not willing to schedule the sessions as I'd requested /
and/or appointing other facilitators for those discussions?
I specifically was requesting to present on #1, #2, #3, and #5. I believe
the
e concerned that a
> subcommittee might not have the standard of minute-taking that you would
> like, you could offer to take minutes for that subcommittee? My experience
> is that such an offer is usually received with gratitude!
>
>
>
> On Sep 14, 2018, at 2:04 PM, Ryan
standard of minute-taking that you would
> like, you could offer to take minutes for that subcommittee? My experience
> is that such an offer is usually received with gratitude!
>
> On Sep 14, 2018, at 2:04 PM, Ryan Sleevi via Public
> wrote:
>
> Please review section 8 of the
On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 4:50 PM Tim Hollebeek
wrote:
> Wayne,
>
>
>
> My position is that LWGs are handled via the process in 5.3.4, and not
> 5.3.1(e), and as such, the Validation WG is somewhat special. This was
> actually the intent of the Governance Reform effort; it was intended that
> the
r, the existence or absence of minutes does not in any
> way affect the IPR policy, and there’s no text in the Bylaws or IPR policy
> that suggests that it does.
>
>
>
> -Tim
>
>
>
> *From:* Public *On Behalf Of *Ryan Sleevi
> via Public
> *Sent:* Friday, September
y, September 13, 2018 7:11 PM
> *To:* Ryan Sleevi ; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion
> List
> *Subject:* Re: [cabfpub] Ballot SC10 ? Establishing the Network Security
> Subcommittee of the SCWG
>
>
>
> Would it be helpful to take a step back and propose an amendment to
n, the Validation Working Group has selected option (a). If we
> want a Ballot to confirm that, we can have a ballot, but I will not allow
> members to obstruct the LWG’s right to choose option (a), a right the
> Working Group clearly has, as stated in the Bylaws.
>
>
>
> -
previous governance. These "officially declared" teams had great momentum,
> produced a lot of improvements to the Forum's Guidelines, met regularly and
> were coordinated by one or two people that facilitated the discussions and
> provided the necessary logistics (calendar sche
he necessary logistics (calendar scheduling, agendas, minutes and
> so on). I can't imagine that the Governance change intended to make things
> so hard to form these currently-called "subcommittees". In case of doubt,
> ballots were always a good way forward, *unless *they pr
1 - 100 of 855 matches
Mail list logo
