[cabfpub] 答复: Ballot 201 - .onion Revisions

2017-06-06 Thread xiongyuanyuan via Public
SHECA votes YES on ballot 201. Ruby Xiong Shanghai Electronic Certification Authority co., ltd. 18F, No.1717, North Sichuan Road, Shanghai, China Tel：+86-21-36393197 Email： xiongyuany...@sheca.com

[cabfpub] Draft agenda for CABF teleconference June 8, 2017 at 16:00 UTC

2017-06-06 Thread Kirk Hall via Public
Here is the draft agenda for our teleconference this Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 16:00 UTC (9:00 am Pacific, 12:00 pm Noon Eastern). Please suggest additional topics. Time Start (UTC) Stop Item Description Presenters (Thursday) May 25, 2017 0:02 16:00 16:02 1. Roll Call Kirk 0:01

Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 201 - .onion Revisions

2017-06-06 Thread Peter Miškovič via Public
Disig "Abstains". Disig doesn't issue EV certificates. Regards Peter From: Public [mailto:public-boun...@cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Ben Wilson via Public Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2017 9:50 PM To: CABFPub Cc: Ben Wilson Subject: [cabfpub]

Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 201 - .onion Revisions

2017-06-06 Thread Gervase Markham via Public
On 25/05/17 20:50, Ben Wilson via Public wrote: > *Ballot 201 - .Onion Revisions* Mozilla votes YES. Gerv ___ Public mailing list Public@cabforum.org https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public

Re: [cabfpub] FW: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6844 (5029)

2017-06-06 Thread Phillip via Public
I will find out who has the change token. In the meantime, is there anyone who has a problem with the technical proposal or the language? -Original Message- From: Gervase Markham [mailto:g...@mozilla.org] Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2017 11:37 AM To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion

Re: [cabfpub] FW: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6844 (5029)

2017-06-06 Thread Gervase Markham via Public
On 06/06/17 16:13, Phillip via Public wrote: > My proposal is to amend the BR to read “RFC 6844 as amended by Errata > 5029”. I'm sure there would be little objection to this once the errata reaches "Held for Document Update". Is there anything that prevents it from getting there? Gerv

Re: [cabfpub] FW: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6844 (5029)

2017-06-06 Thread Ryan Sleevi via Public
I believe you may have misunderstood my question. That said, it would be very useful if you could point to such a public message from the ADs. As an IETF veteran, I'm sure you understand this process, but for the sake of the members less engaged in such SDOs, there's two aspects here: 1)

Re: [cabfpub] FW: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6844 (5029)

2017-06-06 Thread Phillip via Public
It is really very difficult to see how we can do anything in IETF when the ADs are telling us we have to finish the existing LAMPS work first. From: Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sle...@google.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2017 10:41 AM To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List

Re: [cabfpub] FW: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6844 (5029)

2017-06-06 Thread Ryan Sleevi via Public
On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 10:35 AM, Phillip via Public wrote: > This is the update for the CAA errata as approved by Jacob. Please review > in case there is another cut n' paste screw up and we can go to a ballot. > > Do I have a seconder? > Could you clarify what you're

[cabfpub] Changing numbers of self-audited certificates

2017-06-06 Thread Gervase Markham via Public
Currently, the BRs define, in section 8.7, the parameters for self-audits and audits of certificates below a TCSC. At the moment, the number of certs randomly chosen to be audited is defined as "the greater of one certificate or at least three percent of the Certificates issued". I think that

Re: [cabfpub] Fixup ballot for CAA

2017-06-06 Thread Gervase Markham via Public
On 05/06/17 18:06, Geoff Keating via Public wrote: > Perhaps we should have a general rule that all RFC references mean a > reference to the RFC plus all approved errata? So the problem, as far as I can see, that RFC errata have 3 possible final states - Verified (i.e. accepted, approved),