[cabfpub] 回复： Voting has started on Ballot 180 - ends January 7

GDCA votes yes. 原始邮件 发件人:Kirk Hall via publicpub...@cabforum.org 收件人:CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion listpub...@cabforum.org 抄送:Kirk hallkirk.h...@entrustdatacard.com 发送时间:2017年1月3日(周二) 02:28 主题:[cabfpub] Voting has started on Ballot 180 - ends January 7 The voting period for Ballot 180 has

Re: [cabfpub] Voting has started on Ballot 181 - ends January 7

GDCA votes yes. From: Kirk Hall Sent: Monday, January 2, 2017 10:29 AM To: 'CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List' public@cabforum.org Subject: Voting has started on Ballot 181 - ends January 7 The voting period for Ballot 181 has started, and will continue until January 7, 2017 at 22:00

Re: [cabfpub] Public Digest, Vol 57, Issue 19

Hi Peter, That is not addressed in the current policy, but I think we added it into the new process document. Best regards, Virginia Fournier Senior Standards Counsel  Apple Inc. ☏ 669-227-9595 ✉︎ v...@apple.com On Jan 3, 2017, at 6:43 PM, Peter Bowen

Re: [cabfpub] Public Digest, Vol 57, Issue 19

Hi Ryan, We all know we disagree on the current documents, which is, in part, why we are working on an updated process. Would you please clarify what your specific objective is? Are you looking for an interpretation that the voting period on Ballot 182 ends on Jan 7th? Please note that a

Re: [cabfpub] Public Digest, Vol 57, Issue 19

> On Jan 3, 2017, at 6:32 PM, Ryan Sleevi via Public > wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 5:57 PM, Virginia Fournier via Public > > wrote: > 1) Does the formation of a PAG affect the stated ballot date of Jan 7? >

Re: [cabfpub] Public Digest, Vol 57, Issue 19

On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 5:57 PM, Virginia Fournier via Public < public@cabforum.org> wrote: > 1) Does the formation of a PAG affect the stated ballot date of Jan 7? > > >>>Pursuant to Section 7.3.1, the PAG is convened by the PAG Chair, and > the timing is at the discretion of the PAG Chair. So

Re: [cabfpub] Public Digest, Vol 57, Issue 19

ted to evaluation of the patents in question or the terms under > which CAB Forum RF licensing requirements may be met. > > d. The project relating to the Draft Guideline in question should be > terminated. > > e. The Final Guideline or Final Maintenance Guideline should

Re: [cabfpub] Volunteers needed to serve on a Patent Advisory Group (PAG) for Ballot 182

>From a process standpoint, it would be helpful if you can clarify your view on these matters: 1) Does the formation of a PAG affect the stated ballot date of Jan 7? 2) Does the formation of a PAG begin independent of any ballot results? 3) Does the formation of a PAG prevent members from

[cabfpub] Draft Agenda for CABF call this Thursday, Jan. 5 - please edit

Please suggest other topics for our CABF teleconference for this Thursday, Jan. 5, 2017 Time Start (UTC) Stop Slot Description Notes / Presenters (Thur) 5 January 2017 0:02 16:00 16:02 1 Roll Call Kirk 0:01 16:02 16:03 2 Read Antitrust Statement Robin 0:01 16:03 16:04 3

Re: [cabfpub] Proposed Ballot 183 - Allowing 822 Names and (limited) otherNames

On 03/01/17 20:32, Jeremy Rowley via Public wrote: _If a name constrained CA has a dNSNAme constrain but does not have a constraint for SRVNames, the CA MUST NOT issue certificates containing SRVNames._ Jeremy, ISTM that this sentence really doesn't work. Firstly, I think "name constrained

Re: [cabfpub] Proposed Ballot 183 - Allowing 822 Names and (limited) otherNames

I suppose I could put in exactly what the WFA requires for validation. Would including this language be sufficient? The id-wfa-hotspot-friendlyName MUST contain exactly 1 language code and Friendly Name for an Operator. In the case where a Friendly Name is to be included in more than one

Re: [cabfpub] Proposed Ballot 183 - Allowing 822 Names and (limited) otherNames

"3) a rfc822Name containing an RFC 5322 email address" Hi Jeremy. I see why you've written that (5322 obsoleted 2822, which obsoleted 822, and "822" appears in the string "rfc822Name"). However, I think it would be better to defer to 5280, since that is the document that defines the

Re: [cabfpub] Proposed Ballot 183 - Allowing 822 Names and (limited) otherNames

Agreed, but this line of reasoning always leads to simply not supporting third party projects because the projects may cause issues with the CAB Forum update. IMO, if a group wants to use publicly trusted certs, then that group inherits all the baggage that goes with it. We really control all

Re: [cabfpub] Proposed Ballot 183 - Allowing 822 Names and (limited) otherNames

On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 12:46 PM, Jeremy Rowley wrote: > There is a public file (in the link I provided), but it requires filling > out information to access. It’s the HotSpot 2.0 Technical documentation, > which includes the Certificate Policy (“Hostspot 2-0 (R2) OSU

Re: [cabfpub] Proposed Ballot 183 - Allowing 822 Names and (limited) otherNames

There is a public file (in the link I provided), but it requires filling out information to access. It’s the HotSpot 2.0 Technical documentation, which includes the Certificate Policy (“Hostspot 2-0 (R2) OSU Certificate Policy Specification”). The documentation is already free to anyone who

Re: [cabfpub] Proposed Ballot 183 - Allowing 822 Names and (limited) otherNames

I guess I would be more precise: Can you specify a specific document to adhere to? A specific (public) process to evaluate? I think finding support for this is mostly about finding ways to minimize risk for misissuance. Should we expect/desire to have a liason member from the WFA? Should we

Re: [cabfpub] Proposed Ballot 183 - Allowing 822 Names and (limited) otherNames

That still seems exceptionally vague for wfa-hotspot-friendlyName. Could you tighten it up, or explain why it's ambiguous? For example, if an individual member of the WiFi Alliance says "Yeah, that's OK", is that deemed appropriate? On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 12:13 PM, Jeremy Rowley via Public <

Re: [cabfpub] Proposed Ballot 183 - Allowing 822 Names and (limited) otherNames

Sure – I thought I’d keep it more general than that in case we wanted to include additional otherNames, but we can always address scenarios as they arise. Assuming the otherName for WFA is non-controversial, we can combine the SRV ballot with this proposal: 7.1.4.2.1. Subject

Re: [cabfpub] Proposed Ballot 183 - Allowing 822 Names and (limited) otherNames

I think we should be more specific on the otherName requirements bit. Can it change to “for id-wfa-hotspot-friendlyName, the CA MUST …”? (I’m not sure what specification is relevant here) > On Jan 3, 2017, at 8:35 AM, Jeremy Rowley via Public > wrote: > > This

Re: [cabfpub] Proposed Ballot 183 - Allowing 822 Names and (limited) otherNames

Okay - 184 sounds good. From: Public [mailto:public-boun...@cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Kirk Hall via Public Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2017 9:58 AM To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List Cc: Kirk Hall Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Proposed

Re: [cabfpub] [Corrected] Voting has started on Ballot 180 - ends January 7

GlobalSign votes YES Doug From: Public [mailto:public-boun...@cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Kirk Hall via Public Sent: Monday, January 2, 2017 1:30 PM To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List Cc: Kirk Hall Subject: [cabfpub] [Corrected]