[cabfpub] Results on Ballot 218 - Remove Validation Methods #1 and #5

The voting period for Ballot 218 has ended and the ballot has passed. Here are the results. Voting by CAs - 22 votes total including abstentions 14 Yes votes: CFCA, Cisco, Comodo CA, D-TRUST, DigiCert, GDCA, GlobalSign, GoDaddy, Izenpe, Let's Encrypt, Logius PKIoverheid, SSL.com, TrustCor,

[cabfpub] Open invitation from CABF Chair to Interested Parties to participate in Validation Working Group meeting, March 6, Herndon, VA

The CA/Browser Forum's Bylaws at Section 2.3(c) allow the Forum Chair (currently me) to invite Interested Parties to participate in Working Group meetings. I hereby extend an invitation to Forum Interested Parties to participate in person or remotely in the all-day Validation Working Group

[cabfpub] Attendance of Interested Parties at Working Group meetings

Yes, that is true. In the case of a brand-new party wishing to attend a WG meeting, getting an invitation to a WG meeting is not enough - the IPR agreement needs to be signed as well. Best regards, Virginia Fournier Senior Standards Counsel  Apple Inc. ☏ 669-227-9595 ✉︎ v...@apple.com

Re: [cabfpub] Attendance of Interested Parties at Working Group meetings

I should clarify one thing that is probably already clear – the invitation to Interested Parties is to the Tuesday Validation Working Group meeting only, and not to the Forum plenary sessions on Wednesday and Thursday. From: Public [mailto:public-boun...@cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Dean Coclin

[cabfpub] Review Notices / Ballot 206 - the gate is now closed

0201/d5b63453/attachment.html> ------ Subject: Digest Footer ___ Public mailing list Public@cabforum.org<mailto:Public@cabforum.org> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public -- End of Pub

Re: [cabfpub] Voting begins: Ballot 218 version 2

Let's Encrypt votes YES on ballot 218 On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 2:09 PM, Berge, J. van den (Jochem) - Logius via Public wrote: > PKIoverheid votes YES. > > > > We’ve been following the discussion as it has unfolded. The definition of > current methods 3.2.2.4.1 and 3.2.2.4.5,

Re: [cabfpub] Attendance of Interested Parties at Working Group meetings

Note that the definition of Interested Party includes signing of the IPR. Hence they all have already done so. From: Public [mailto:public-boun...@cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Virginia Fournier via Public Sent: Monday, February 5, 2018 4:27 PM To: public@cabforum.org Subject: [cabfpub] Attendance

[cabfpub] Attendance of Interested Parties at Working Group meetings

As a follow-up to Kirk’s invitation to Interested Parties to attend the VWG meeting on March 6, please note that each Interested Party must sign the CAB Forum IPR Agreement *before* attending the VWG meeting. Thanks. Best regards, Virginia Fournier Senior Standards Counsel  Apple Inc. ☏

Re: [cabfpub] Review Notices

I support this, because the technology we are currently using offers the option of viewing the final document without redlining if you so choose. -Tim From: Public [mailto:public-boun...@cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Rich Smith via Public Sent: Monday, February 5, 2018 2:17 PM To: 'Ryan

Re: [cabfpub] Review Notices

I think Ryan and Kirk are both right. Ryan in that for effective review the change must be reviewed and understood as part of the whole, Kirk in that sending out the whole document without redlining the specific changes under review also makes review more difficult. I propose that we change

Re: [cabfpub] Governance WG meeting at F2F

All the rooms booked for the meeting in Herndon have full video conference capabilities. They are set up to natively use Amazon Chime, which works on macOS, iOS, Windows, and Android, has audio-only dial-in numbers for many countries, and has web based screen sharing. > On Feb 5, 2018, at

[cabfpub] Governance WG meeting at F2F

Please let me know when the Governance WG meeting will be at the F2F and provide a dial-in number. Thanks. Best regards, Virginia Fournier Senior Standards Counsel  Apple Inc. ☏ 669-227-9595 ✉︎ v...@apple.com Begin forwarded message: From:

[cabfpub] Recruiting experts for the Validation Summit

CA/Browser Forum Members, I would like to invite you to consider who you may know who would be a valuable addition to the domain validation security analysis. It would be great if we could get participation from a wide variety of people who don't normally participate in CA/Browser

Re: [cabfpub] Voting begins: Ballot 218 version 2

PKIoverheid votes YES. We’ve been following the discussion as it has unfolded. The definition of current methods 3.2.2.4.1 and 3.2.2.4.5, as currently worded in the BR, we have to agree, leaves much room for interpretation. However, we might be able to improve these methods, a process that

Re: [cabfpub] Attendance of Interested Parties at Working Group meetings

On 05/02/18 17:46, Ryan Sleevi wrote: > Agreed. My specific concern is the notion of a 'vote-a-rama' of text > changes to the Bylaws as the way of making progress. Well, I think that at minimum, the VWG should be strongly inclined to push this to a vote after the F2F, and make that clear. After

Re: [cabfpub] Attendance of Interested Parties at Working Group meetings

Agreed. My specific concern is the notion of a 'vote-a-rama' of text changes to the Bylaws as the way of making progress. On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 12:43 PM, Tim Hollebeek wrote: > There is a bit of a “the perfect is the enemy of the good” thing going on > here, though.

Re: [cabfpub] Attendance of Interested Parties at Working Group meetings

On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 12:10 PM, Gervase Markham wrote: > On 05/02/18 17:05, Ryan Sleevi wrote: > > I appreciate the sentiment towards getting it out, but I also think it's > > worth highlighting that the failure to carefully review things - or to > > allow time for that -

Re: [cabfpub] Attendance of Interested Parties at Working Group meetings

On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 12:02 PM, Gervase Markham via Public < public@cabforum.org> wrote: > On 05/02/18 15:04, Tim Hollebeek via Public wrote: > > I expressed concern about running other WGs in parallel with VWG since I > > participate in all of them, but I can withdraw my objection with respect

Re: [cabfpub] Attendance of Interested Parties at Working Group meetings

On 05/02/18 15:04, Tim Hollebeek via Public wrote: > I expressed concern about running other WGs in parallel with VWG since I > participate in all of them, but I can withdraw my objection with respect > to the Governance WG if that helps. I think that having the Governance WG meeting on a plenary

Re: [cabfpub] Voting begins: Ballot 218 version 2

Chunghwa Telecom Co., Ltd. Votes “No” on Ballot 218. Li-Chun Chen From: Public[mailto:public-boun...@cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Mads Egil Henriksveenvia Public Sent: Friday, February 02, 2018 8:52 PM To: Tim Hollebeek; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List Subject: [外部郵件]Re:

Re: [cabfpub] Underlying validation requirements

This question (what is being certified?) will be one of the first topics on the agenda for the Validation WG meeting in Virginia. On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 12:19 AM, Adriano Santoni via Public < public@cabforum.org> wrote: > I agree. Before re-discussing the various 3.2.2.4 methods, we should first

Re: [cabfpub] Attendance of Interested Parties at Working Group meetings

I expressed concern about running other WGs in parallel with VWG since I participate in all of them, but I can withdraw my objection with respect to the Governance WG if that helps. -Tim From: Public [mailto:public-boun...@cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Dean Coclin via Public Sent: Friday,

Re: [cabfpub] Voting begins: Ballot 218 version 2

Trustwave votes YES to Ballot 218 version 2 From: Public > on behalf of Tim Hollebeek via Public > Reply-To: Tim Hollebeek