Thanks Dimitris,
I'd like to thank the Forum for approving this important work. DigiCert is of
course excited to have the opportunity to participate in the Definitions and
Glossary Working Group, and is declaring its intent to participate.
I'd like to encourage all members who are interested to
DigiCert votes YES on FORUM-021.
-Tim
From: Public On Behalf Of Clint Wilson via Public
Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2024 11:03 AM
To: CABforum1
Subject: [cabfpub] Voting Period Begins | Ballot FORUM-021: Form Definitions
and Glossary WG
Ballot FORUM-021
Proposed by Clint Wilson of
DigiCert votes NO on FORUM-020 v2.
This is purely based on a minor problem which I wish I had spotted during the
discussion period, but didn’t.
The problem is that the requirement to put the CABF policy OID in timestamping
certs or ICAs is pretty recent, and there are extant certificates
DigiCert votes YES on Ballot FORUM-019 v2.
We do have concerns that the new membership and probationary rules may prove to
be onerous both to comply with and to track, but if these are the membership
rules Certificate Consumers want, we’re fine with them. If they turn out to be
problematic
DigiCert votes YES on Forum-18 v3.
-Tim
From: Public On Behalf Of Dimitris Zacharopoulos
(HARICA) via Public
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2023 4:43 AM
To: CABforum1
Subject: [cabfpub] Voting begins for Ballot Forum-18 v3 - Update CA/B Forum
Bylaws to version 2.5
This message begins the voting
Hello,
We recently had yet another long discussion on a server cert working group call
about what it means for a applicant's certificate to be on a "third party"
website. This is the second time in recent history this requirement has been
extensively discussed, and has been pointed out by
We've discussed reading the bylaws a lot, but we've missed one point. What
does "substantially similar" mean?
Do people feel the following is "substantially similar" to the antitrust
statement mentioned in Bylaws section 1.3:
There once was a meeting, you see,
Of companies, who all do
DigiCert votes YES on FORUM-18.
-Tim
From: Public On Behalf Of Tim Hollebeek via Public
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2022 3:10 PM
To: CABforum1
Subject: [cabfpub] Voting Begins: FORUM-18, Allow Re-election of CWG Chairs and
Vice Chairs
Ballot FORUM-18, Allow Re-election of CWG Chairs and Vice
Ballot FORUM-18, Allow Re-election of CWG Chairs and Vice Chairs
Proposed by Tim Hollebeek of DigiCert and endorsed by Ben Wilson of Mozilla and
Wayne Thayer of Fastly.
Overview
Section 4.1 of the Bylaws describes elections for Forum Chair and Vice Chair,
and says:
"No person may serve as
ion count (e.g. third or forth or so)
> as
> the safeguard, although everyone believe CABF members are good faith.
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Yoshiro YONEYA
>
> On Wed, 20 Jul 2022 18:46:36 + Tim Hollebeek via Public
> wrote:
>
> > Ballot FORUM-18: Allow
Ballot FORUM-18: Allow Re-election of CWG Chairs and Vice Chairs
Proposed by Tim Hollebeek of DigiCert and endorsed by Ben Wilson of Mozilla and
Wayne Thayer of Fastly.
*** Overview ***
Section 4.1 of the Bylaws describes elections for Forum Chair and Vice Chair,
and says:
"No person may
ell.
-Tim
From: Public mailto:public-boun...@cabforum.org>>
On Behalf Of Tim Hollebeek via Public
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2022 10:53 AM
To: CABforum1 mailto:public@cabforum.org>>
Subject: [cabfpub] Draft Ballot FORUM-18: Allow re-election of CWG chairs and
vice chairs
I should also mention that there are a few other election-related errors in the
Bylaws, but I think mixing policy issues and bugfixes in the same ballot is bad
practice.
Willing to work on a separate ballot for those as well.
-Tim
From: Public On Behalf Of Tim Hollebeek via Public
Sent
Thank you very much to Ben for the endorsement:
https://github.com/cabforum/forum/pull/27#issuecomment-1189406036
Looking for one more endorser, and I always forget how to do stable github
comparison URLs...
Ballot FORUM-18, Allow Re-election of CWG Chairs and Vice Chairs
Proposed by
Hello,
Dean poked me and reminded me that I have an action item from the last
Face-to-Face to propose a ballot to update the Bylaws to allow for reelection
of CWG officers.
Here is my first attempt at a proposal:
https://github.com/cabforum/forum/pull/27
I read through the Bylaws a few
The 21 day time limit for discussion is intended to prevent abandoned ballots
from lingering forever. Experience has shown that this limit is too short, and
there often is a more than 21 day gap between ballot updates when people are
busy, discussions are complicated, and so on. Ballot
DigiCert votes YES on Forum-17.
-Tim
From: Public On Behalf Of Ben Wilson via Public
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2021 1:39 PM
To: CABforum1
Subject: [cabfpub] Voting Period Begins: Ballot FORUM-17: Create Network
Security Working Group
Ballot FORUM-17, Create Network Security
I think this is probably fine. Getting coordinated compliance with the NCSSRs
across the various WGs may be best handled by one or more root programs,
instead of the WGs themselves, which have challenges here due to the
intentional segmentation.
-Tim
From: Ben Wilson
Sent: Monday,
The problem is that you would forcing IPR review responsibilities onto a bunch
of people who explicitly tried to avoid it by not joining the working group(s)
in question.
This is problematic because “IPR review” isn’t just a review – you’re granting
IP rights if you don’t make a
I don’t think it can be done. Remember, the entire point of various people not
being in various working groups is because they don’t want to review, disclose,
or grant licenses based on updates to the documents in that working group.
While it would be nice if everyone joined the NetSec
So, the approach I’ve been advocating so far in various WGs is the following:
1. NetSec WG produces and maintains versions of the NCSSRs
2. Individual WGs point to a specific version of the NCSSRs
3. Individual WGs from time to time, evaluate and consume new versions,
and
This was the approach that was discussed in the CS WG. We were going to add
a policy identifier that would help distinguish between timestamping
services intended to be CS BR compliant, and generic timestamping services.
-Tim
From: Public On Behalf Of Doug Beattie via
Public
Sent:
DigiCert votes YES on ballot Forum-15.
-Tim
From: Public On Behalf Of Dimitris Zacharopoulos
(HARICA) via Public
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 11:11 AM
To: CABforum1
Subject: [cabfpub] Voting begins on Special Ballot Forum-15: Election of
CA/Browser Forum Chair
Voting begins
I would potentially like to fix "Application Software Suppliers", and
replace it with a better term, if others are interested. One possibility is
to use Certificate Consumers, to more closely align with the Bylaws.
-Tim
From: Public On Behalf Of Dean Coclin via
Public
Sent: Friday,
Reminder: Voting ends Monday.
-Tim
From: Public On Behalf Of Tim Hollebeek via
Public
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2020 4:52 PM
To: CABforum1
Subject: [cabfpub] VOTING BEGINS: Ballot Forum-14 version 2: Creation of
S/MIME Certificates Working Group
The following ballot is proposed by Tim
Just a reminder to make sure that your company's voting representatives are
correctly specified according to the new Bylaws before voting on Forum 14.
-Tim
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
Public mailing list
DigiCert votes YES on Forum-14 version 2.
-Tim
From: Public On Behalf Of Tim Hollebeek via
Public
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2020 4:52 PM
To: CABforum1
Subject: [cabfpub] VOTING BEGINS: Ballot Forum-14 version 2: Creation of
S/MIME Certificates Working Group
The following ballot
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
The CA/Browser Forum underwent a two-year long governance reform
From: Public On Behalf Of Tim Hollebeek via
Public
Sent: Monday, June 1, 2020 4:40 PM
To: CABforum1
Subject: [cabfpub] Ballot Forum-14 version 2: Creation of S/MIME
Certificates Working Group
The following ballot is proposed by Tim Hollebeek of DigiCert and endorsed
by Wayne Thayer of Mozilla
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
The CA/Browser Forum underwent a two-year long governance reform
), depending on when you get this :)
On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 3:04 PM Tim Hollebeek via Public mailto:public@cabforum.org> > wrote:
I believe the most recent attempt to post this was swallowed by CABForum mailer
issues that were fixed today. Reposting:
The following ballot is proposed
I believe the most recent attempt to post this was swallowed by CABForum
mailer issues that were fixed today. Reposting:
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
docs/pull/22/files
-Tim
From: Ryan Sleevi mailto:sle...@google.com> >
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 5:44 PM
To: Tim Hollebeek mailto:tim.holleb...@digicert.com> >; CABforum1 mailto:public@cabforum.org> >
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot FORUM-12: Creation of S/MIME Certificates
, May 13, 2020 5:44 PM
To: Tim Hollebeek mailto:tim.holleb...@digicert.com> >; CABforum1 mailto:public@cabforum.org> >
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot FORUM-12: Creation of S/MIME Certificates Working
Group
On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 5:18 PM Tim Hollebeek via Public mailto:public@cabforum
DigiCert votes YES on Forum-12.
-Tim
From: Public On Behalf Of Dimitris Zacharopoulos
(HARICA) via Public
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2020 11:30 AM
To: CABforum1
Subject: [cabfpub] Voting Begins for ballot Forum-12 - Update CA/B Forum Bylaws
The following motion has been proposed by
From: Ryan Sleevi
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 5:44 PM
To: Tim Hollebeek ; CABforum1
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot FORUM-12: Creation of S/MIME Certificates Working
Group
On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 5:18 PM Tim Hollebeek via Public mailto:public@cabforum.org> > wrote:
Upon ap
ge those who haven't read the charter recently to review it
and provide any last comments. DigiCert would be willing to support the
charter as written.
-Tim
From: Public On Behalf Of Tim Hollebeek via
Public
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 5:18 PM
To: CABforum1
Subject: [cabfpub] Ballot FOR
The following ballot is proposed by Tim Hollebeek of DigiCert and endorsed
by Wayne Thayer of Mozilla and Clint Wilson of Apple.
Ballot Forum-11: Creation of S/MIME Certificates Working Group
Purpose of the Ballot
The CA/Browser Forum underwent a two-year long governance reform
Ryan: Any other issues, or shall we get a ballot out for discussion?
(of course, discussion can continue during the ballot discussion period as well)
-Tim
From: Public On Behalf Of Tim Hollebeek via Public
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2020 4:24 PM
To: Ryan Sleevi
Cc: CABforum1
Subject
I’m fine with this. Looks like Clint and Wayne are too (just repeating this
here for those who don’t follow the link).
-Tim
From: Ryan Sleevi
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2020 3:42 PM
To: Tim Hollebeek
Cc: CABforum1
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Update about S/MIME Charter
I think some people might have objections to “includes, but not limited to…”
language, but I don’t. I think it’s sometimes helpful when drafting
intentionally broad criteria like this to make it explicitly clear that common
cases like “WebTrust for CAs” or “ETSI …” is indeed “relevant to the
Dimitris,
I made some comments in github about a few minor issues that I think it would
be useful to resolve, but this draft is close enough to the desired final state
that I’d feel comfortable endorsing it, if that removes a roadblock to it
moving forward.
-Tim
From: Public On
Unintentional, and thanks for calling it out. I don’t have strong feelings on
the issue and agree broader participation is a useful goal, especially before
requirements exist. Certificate Consumers can, and I expect will, have their
own opinions on what audits are appropriate and necessary
(and potentially harmful). So it was removed. It
would be useful to know if Microsoft agrees with that interpretation,
otherwise we are going to have to find another solution to that issue.
-Tim
From: Public On Behalf Of Tim Hollebeek via
Public
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2020 7:57 PM
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 of useful improvements were
contributed by Google. After some discussion, most of those
DigiCert votes YES on ballot Forum-13.
-Tim
From: Public On Behalf Of Dean Coclin via
Public
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2020 8:00 PM
To: CABforum1
Subject: [cabfpub] VOTING BEGINS: BALLOT Forum 13: Correct Code Signing
Certificate Working Group Charter error
Voting begins on Ballot
I’m fine with this language. I’ll convert it to a ballot and start a
discussion period.
-Tim
From: cli...@apple.com
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2020 11:07 AM
To: Ryan Sleevi
Cc: CABforum1 ; Tim Hollebeek
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Creation of S/MIME Certificates Working Group
Sure
Thanks for this. Feedback following soon.
By the way, if someone wants to get this over to markdown at some point, feel
free.
It got converted to Word at some point and I didn’t have time to change it back
while working on substantive issues.
-Tim
From: cli...@apple.com
Sent:
Here is an attempt to address Apple’s comments during the voting. This is
based on discussions with Clint about how to resolve some of Apple’s concerns.
Clint had some additional comments but I’ll let him provide those.
One of the biggest roadblocks is that Apple’s legal team has a problem
Thanks to everyone who provided feedback on this ballot, both during the
discussion period and other previous conversations. I would especially like
to thank Apple for their extremely detailed comments which helped explain
many of the changes that were included in the previously provided redline.
that after all this time we've reached the point where we're
actively hammering out the last details.
-Tim
From: Public On Behalf Of Tim Hollebeek via
Public
Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2020 5:09 PM
To: CABforum1
Subject: [cabfpub] Voting Begins: Forum-11: Creation of S/MIME Certificates
The bootstrapping issue was discussed extensively during governance reform, and
it was noted that there are a number of ways to deal with it, including the one
you mention.
-Tim
From: Wayne Thayer
Sent: Thursday, February 6, 2020 2:05 PM
To: Ryan Sleevi
Cc: CABforum1 ; Tim Hollebeek
Wayne,
Yes, it’s been there for a long time. I wasn’t responsible for putting it in,
but I believe the goal was to allow as broad as possible participation from
affected stakeholders within the ecosystem. The lack of broad participation is
one of the most common complaints I hear about
The following ballot is proposed by Tim Hollebeek of DigiCert and endorsed
by Wayne Thayer of Mozilla and Adriano Santoni of Actalis.
Ballot Forum-11: Creation of S/MIME Certificates Working Group
Purpose of the Ballot
The CA/Browser Forum recently underwent a two-year long governance
Thanks for this, but this is fundamentally incompatible with the path forward
we agreed to in Guangzhou.
-Tim
From: cli...@apple.com On Behalf Of Clint Wilson
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2020 7:53 PM
To: Tim Hollebeek ; CABforum1
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot Forum-11: Creation of S/MIME
Some of this overlaps with work being currently done in the NetSec working
group, which has discussed threat modeling for CAs. IIRC, in the past,
we've discussed SDLC-related issues and deployment practices within that WG
as well.
-Tim
From: Public On Behalf Of Jeremy Rowley via
Public
The following ballot is proposed by Tim Hollebeek of DigiCert and endorsed
by Wayne Thayer of Mozilla and Adriano Santoni of Actalis.
Ballot Forum-11: Creation of S/MIME Certificates Working Group
Purpose of the Ballot
The CA/Browser Forum recently underwent a two-year long
Ok, I think it's time to circulate this to a wider audience and look for
endorsers. Happy holidays!
-Tim
Purpose of the Ballot
The CA/Browser Forum recently underwent a two-year long governance reform
exercise, modifying the Bylaws to allow the creation of working groups that
covered
Found this while working on the S/MIME charter.
The CSWG charter inadvertently and erroneously requires that Certificate
Issuers be able to TLS certificates:
"4.2.2. Membership Application .
[.]
* The URL of at least one third party website that includes a
https://ietf.org/how/meetings/
IETF 106 November 16 - 22
IETF 107 March 21-27, 2020
IETF 108 July 25-31
IETF 109 November 14 - 20
IETF 110 March 6-12, 2021
IETF 111 July 24-30
IETF 112 November 6-12
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
For the first issue, I'm happy to change 2 to "up to three" in the spring
cleanup ballot, if it's non-controversial.
The second issue is more complicated. I like your approach and we should
talk about it in Thessaloniki.
-Tim
From: Public On Behalf Of Kirk Hall via Public
Sent:
DigiCert votes YES on ballot Forum-9.
From: Public On Behalf Of Wayne Thayer via Public
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 3:59 AM
To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List
Subject: [cabfpub] Voting Begins: Ballot Forum-9 - Bylaws and Server
Certificate Working Group Charter Updates
Purpose
c-boun...@cabforum.org>
> On Behalf Of Tim Hollebeek via Public
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2019 1:37 PM
To: Wayne Thayer mailto:wtha...@mozilla.com> >
Cc: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List mailto:public@cabforum.org> >
Subject: [EXTERNAL]Re: [cabfpub] Bylaws 2.2 Pre-Ballot
I li
I like it.
-Tim
From: Wayne Thayer
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2019 11:22 AM
To: Tim Hollebeek
Cc: Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) ; CA/Browser Forum
Public Discussion List
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Bylaws 2.2 Pre-Ballot
I'd like to propose an alternative that facilitates markdown
I would suggest that this means we need to stick to letters for 5.3.1 for now,
and remember to avoid making the same mistake in the future.
-Tim
From: Public On Behalf Of Dimitris Zacharopoulos
(HARICA) via Public
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 10:35 PM
To: Wayne Thayer ; CA/Browser
DigiCert is declaring its intent to participate in the Code Signing Working
Group.
-Tim
From: Public On Behalf Of Dean Coclin via
Public
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2019 9:46 AM
To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List
Subject: [cabfpub] Code Signing Working Group - Call for Participants
In order to begin voting (after 7 days have elapsed), you need to repost the
ballot and state that voting is beginning. Voting starts whenever you do so.
-Tim
From: Public On Behalf Of Ben Wilson via Public
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2019 1:38 PM
To: Ben Wilson ; CA/Browser Forum
Would be happy to see a ballot clarifying this.
It would be an improvement if “not actually misissued, but treated as
misissuance” became an ex-thing. If people want certain things to not happen,
there needs to be a discussion culminating in a successful ballot that
expresses clear rules
My experience is the reverse. IETF and groups with tight charters get bogged
down in constant discussions about charter revisions. CABF has recently fallen
into the same trap and I don’t think it is a change for the better. There are
other SDOs I participate in where groups have operated for
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 they want to discuss a new topic is indeed very disruptive and
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.
-Tim
From: Ryan Sleevi
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2019 3:14 PM
To: Tim
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
it’s possible to assure that the domain portion of the email
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.
-Tim
From: Public On Behalf Of Wayne Thayer via Public
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 progress at the Forum itself. And there is certainly no
Thanks Ryan,
Your memory matches mine. Unfortunately it might take a little bit of time
since the registry was never set up when RFC 6844 passed (I believe this was
mentioned in passing in London).
I’ll poke people in Prague if it isn’t resolved by then, but the wheels of IETF
Russ and I are working with IETF on getting an expert appointed.
-Tim
> -Original Message-
> From: Paul Hoffman
> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2018 11:49 AM
> To: Rob Stradling ; CA/B Forum Server Certificate WG
> Public Discussion List
> Cc: Tim Hollebeek ; CA/Browser Forum Public
>
My understanding is the same as Dimitris’. It got sent to both lists because
the Bylaws are unclear at this time which is the correct public list.
Hopefully we can get that fixed soon.
-Tim
From: Public On Behalf Of Dimitris Zacharopoulos
(HARICA) via Public
Sent: Wednesday, December
DigiCert votes YES on Ballot SC13.
-Tim
From: Public On Behalf Of Tim Hollebeek via
Public
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2018 6:56 PM
To: servercert...@cabforum.org; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List
Subject: [cabfpub] Voting Begins: SC13 version 5: CAA Contact Property and
Associated
Ballot SC13: CAA Contact Property and Associated E-mail Validation Methods
Purpose of Ballot: Increasingly, contact information is not available in
WHOIS due to concerns about potential GDPR violations. This ballot
specifies a method by which domain holders can publish their contact
Ballot SC13: CAA Contact Property and Associated E-mail Validation Methods
Purpose of Ballot: Increasingly, contact information is not available in
WHOIS due to concerns about potential GDPR violations. This ballot
specifies a method by which domain holders can publish their contact
As before, there is both a full redline, and a diff since the last version.
Ballot SC13: CAA Contact Property and Associated E-mail Validation Methods
Purpose of Ballot: Increasingly, contact information is not available in
WHOIS due to concerns about potential GDPR violations. This
Thank you.
-Tim
From: Tim Shirley
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2018 9:20 AM
To: Tim Hollebeek ; CA/B Forum Server
Certificate WG Public Discussion List ;
CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List
Subject: RE: Ballot SC 13 version 2
Nit: "for the" is incorrectly repeated in section
Based on some feedback I received, I fixed some potential ambiguities
regarding use of these methods to validate subdomains.
Note that the redline section contains a rich diff between version 1 and 2
if you only want to see what changed since the last version.
-Tim
Ballot SC13: CAA
I promise the vote will not actually start at 2:30am Eastern.
However this is probably something I will start a vote on, so please review it
closely during the discussion period, instead of waiting until the voting
period to read it
-Tim
From: Public On Behalf Of Tim Hollebeek via
The relevant question at this point is who would participate in and contribute
to an effort to review the Bylaws line by line, and determine whether the
provision applies to the Forum as a whole, Chartered Working Groups, and/or
Subcommittees, and whether the provision can be overridden by a
so sloppy about these
things. It creates confusion.
Regards,
Rich
From: Public mailto:public-boun...@cabforum.org> > On Behalf Of Tim Hollebeek via Public
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2018 2:52 PM
To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List mailto:public@cabforum.org> &
Ballot SC4: CAA Contact Property and Associated E-mail Validation Method
Purpose of Ballot: Increasingly, contact information is not available in
WHOIS due to concerns about potential GDPR violations. This ballot
specifies a method by which domain holders can publish their contact
information
DigiCert votes “YES” on Ballot SC10.
-Tim
From: Public On Behalf Of Kirk Hall via Public
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2018 5:26 PM
To: CABFPub
Subject: [cabfpub] Voting has started on Ballot SC10 – Establishing the Network
Security Subcommittee of the SCWG
Voting ends on 4 October
The Validation WG is going to work on tightening up method 10. TLS ALPN
currently uses that method, as well as the deprecated TLS SNI method. If
any CAs out there are using method 10 in another way, please let us know.
-Tim
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
DigiCert votes “YES” on SC9.
-Tim
From: Public On Behalf Of Kirk Hall via Public
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2018 11:04 AM
To: CABFPub
Subject: [cabfpub] Voting has started on Ballot SC9 – Establish the Validation
Subcommittee of the SCWG
Voting has started on this ballot, and
I'll note that voting on this ballot started yesterday.
DigiCert votes "YES" on FORUM-4 v3.
-Tim
From: Servercert-wg On Behalf Of Tim
Hollebeek via Servercert-wg
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2018 2:50 PM
To: CABFPub ; servercert...@cabforum.org
Subject: [Servercert-wg] Ballot FORUM-4
Ryan, thank you clearly explaining why it is deeply concerning that a Google
representative is opposed to the status quo. We will continue to have minutes,
unless a Google prevents it.
-Tim
From: Ryan Sleevi
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2018 6:52 PM
To: Geoff Keating
Cc: CABFPub ; Tim
I can confirm that the Validation Working Group actually has a list of
participants that have volunteered to take minutes, and we rotate between them.
The time and effort of those four participants is greatly appreciated. And
that’s not just polite wording. Those four people are awesome, and
ilto:tim.holleb...@digicert.com> >; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List
mailto:public@cabforum.org> >
Cc: Ryan Sleevi mailto:sle...@google.com> >
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: Ballot SC10 – Establishing the Network
Security Subcommittee of the SCWG
On Fri, Sep 14
We have the protections in the IPR policy, because we have the IPR policy. To
be clear, 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
: Re: [cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: Ballot SC10 – Establishing the Network
Security Subcommittee of the SCWG
On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 11:40 AM Tim Hollebeek via Public mailto:public@cabforum.org> > wrote:
Ryan,
I am not Ryan, but...
Unfortunately, as a native Californian, I am a very non-v
As no additional typos or mistakes appear to have been found in the proposed
redline, Ballot FORUM-4 v2 is hereby withdrawn, and this new Ballot FORUM-4
v3 submitted in its place. Apologies for not including the latest ETSI
fixes; I really wanted to include them, but I'm just worried that
Ryan,
Unfortunately, as a native Californian, I am a very non-violent person, and the
Code of Conduct explicitly forbids violence, so can we be in utterly
non-violent agreement about the fact that the Validation WG is already an SCWG
subcommittee? That will make it clear we have time to
As I’ve repeatedly pointed out every time it’s come up, there’s no support in
the Bylaws for these additional obstacles to the Validation Working Group’s
clearly expressed choice of option (a).
-Tim
From: Public On Behalf Of Ryan Sleevi via Public
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2018 1:37
What the Bylaws actually say is:
“5.3.4 Legacy Working Groups Any “Legacy” Working Groups (“LWG”) in existence
when this Bylaws v.1.8 is approved by the Forum shall have the option of (a)
converting to a Subcommittee under a CWG pursuant to Section 5.3.1(e), (b)
immediately terminating, or
1 - 100 of 340 matches
Mail list logo
