Re: [cabfpub] [Ext] Voting has started on Ballot 21 - CAA Discovery CNAME Errata

2017-09-21 Thread Paul Hoffman via Public
Related to this tread, a post on the dns-operations mailing list from just now: https://lists.dns-oarc.net/pipermail/dns-operations/2017-September/016752.html ___ Public mailing list Public@cabforum.org https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public

Re: [cabfpub] Voting has started on Ballot 21(4) - CAA Discovery CNAME Errata

2017-09-21 Thread Christopher Kemmerer via Public
SSL.com votes yes. On 9/20/2017 7:54 PM, Kirk Hall via Public wrote: Voting has started on Ballot 214 – CAA Discovery CNAME Errata. Technically, the Discussion period ended at 22:00 UTC today (which was 3:00 pm Pacific Time).  Josh, as the Proposer of the Ballot, accepted Gerv and Tim’s

Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 190 and BR v. 1.5.2

2017-09-21 Thread Kirk Hall via Public
I would vote for just correcting Ballot 190 per the changes in Ballot 204 (that was effectively our intent with the two ballots - 204 was drafted after 190) without an errata ballot, but if anyone wants an errata ballot, that's fine too. From: Public [mailto:public-boun...@cabforum.org] On

[cabfpub] Ballot 190 and BR v. 1.5.2

2017-09-21 Thread Ben Wilson via Public
With passage of Ballot 190, I have created a new version 1.5.2 of the Baseline Requirements, which I'll post shortly to the Forum website. However, we've noticed in creating this version 1.5.2 that Ballot 190 was drafted before passage of Ballot 204, which removed "or Delegated Third Party" from

Re: [cabfpub] Voting has started on Ballot 214 - CAA Discovery CNAME Errata

2017-09-21 Thread Frank Corday via Public
Trustwave votes NO to Ballot 214 Without a transition period, and the possibility of a subsequent transition period ballot failure, this scenario would create an awkward position for those which properly complied with the original BR CNAME requirements. Trustwave would be supportive of Ballot

Re: [cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]RE: Voting has started on Ballot 21 - CAA Discovery CNAME Errata

2017-09-21 Thread Tim Hollebeek via Public
The problem is that 214 could pass and the transition period ballot could fail, and that puts anyone who properly complied with the original BR CNAME requirements in an awkward position. I think the better solution is to start a 7 discussion period for a replacement ballot, and accept that

Re: [cabfpub] Voting has started on Ballot 214 - CAA Discovery CNAME Errata

2017-09-21 Thread Stephen Davidson via Public
QuoVadis votes yes. Stephen From: Kirk Hall Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2017 5:55 PM To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List > Subject: Voting has started on Ballot 21 - CAA Discovery CNAME Errata Voting has started on Ballot 214 –

Re: [cabfpub] Voting has started on Ballot 214 - CAA Discovery CNAME Errata

2017-09-21 Thread Doug Beattie via Public
GlobalSign votes YES From: Public [mailto:public-boun...@cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Kirk Hall via Public Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2017 8:56 PM To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Voting has started on Ballot 214 - CAA Discovery CNAME

Re: [cabfpub] Voting has started on Ballot 214 - CAA Discovery CNAME Errata

2017-09-21 Thread Gervase Markham via Public
Mozilla votes YES. Gerv ___ Public mailing list Public@cabforum.org https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public