: Thursday, November 16, 2017 11:26 AM
To: Geoff Keating <geo...@apple.com>; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List
<public@cabforum.org>; Phillip <phill...@comodo.com>
Subject: RE: [cabfpub] CAA working group description
Let’s put this on the agenda for next CABF teleconference.
t;; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List
<public@cabforum.org>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] CAA working group description
I tried to write the CABForum WG charter so that it did not include changes to
the CAA specification itself; these should indeed be handled at the IETF level.
This WG is ab
On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 4:04 PM, Geoff Keating wrote:
> I don’t think any of these apply at the IETF level; I’m sure the IETF is
> not going to specify a ‘what if you only wanted a little bit of DNSSEC’
> configuration
>
Why not? If DNSSEC is not deployable in practice by CAs,
lic-boun...@cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Ryan Sleevi
> via Public
> Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2017 1:52 PM
> To: Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <j...@letsencrypt.org>; CA/Browser Forum Public
> Discussion List <public@cabforum.org>
> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] CAA working group descri
; Ryan Sleevi <sle...@google.com>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] CAA working group description
On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Doug Beattie <doug.beat...@globalsign.com
<mailto:doug.beat...@globalsign.com> > wrote:
Yes, I agree that it seems IETF has left portions of the spec under
> I know there’s a CAA document going through ACME. Is this also going
LAMPS? The ACME WG is already working on account UIR and validation-methods
parameters. Given that this represents two of the four parameters suggested
during the F2F, should we add the other two there?
There are two CAA
[mailto:public-boun...@cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Jacob
Hoffman-Andrews via Public
Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2017 12:52 PM
To: Phillip <phill...@comodo.com>
Cc: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public@cabforum.org>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] CAA working group description
On Thu,
...@cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Phillip via
Public
Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2017 2:09 PM
To: 'Ryan Sleevi' <sle...@google.com>; 'CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion
List' <public@cabforum.org>; 'Jacob Hoffman-Andrews' <j...@letsencrypt.org>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] CAA working group descr
On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 11:09 AM, Phillip wrote:
> What somewhat worries me is a situation in which I have ten CABForum
> members tell me that they really want X in a CABForum group and then I
> report that into the IETF WG and three people say they have other ideas and
>
rowser Forum Public
Discussion List <public@cabforum.org>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] CAA working group description
I agree with both Phillip and Jacob here. I think LAMPS is a great venue for
working out the technical issues of discussion - and identifying where policy
flexibili
I agree with both Phillip and Jacob here. I think LAMPS is a great venue
for working out the technical issues of discussion - and identifying where
policy flexibility is needed or the challenges - and then bringing that as
maybe one or two more ballots into the Forum. I think the technical
With respect, I would suggest that there is already a CAA working group:
the IETF LAMPS WG at https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/lamps/charter/. It has
the advantage of being open for anyone to join and post, so CAs can more
easily have conversations with Subscribers and Relying Parties. If half of
Geoff
> Keating via Public
> Sent: Wednesday, October 4, 2017 4:33 AM
> To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public@cabforum.org>
> Subject: [cabfpub] CAA working group description
>
> Ballot XXX - Formalization of validation working group
>
>
> Reason
&
Ballot XXX - Formalization of validation working group
Reason
As discussed at the CABforum meeting in Taipei, the Validation working group
has proposed several ballots involving CAA. It was thought that working group
might now be somewhat busy with follow-ups from Ballot 190, that
14 matches
Mail list logo