Re: [cabfpub] CAA working group description

2017-11-16 Thread Phillip via Public
: 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.

Re: [cabfpub] CAA working group description

2017-11-16 Thread Ben Wilson via Public
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

Re: [cabfpub] CAA working group description

2017-10-10 Thread Jacob Hoffman-Andrews via Public
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,

Re: [cabfpub] CAA working group description

2017-10-09 Thread Geoff Keating via Public
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

Re: [cabfpub] CAA working group description

2017-10-06 Thread Phillip via Public
; 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

Re: [cabfpub] CAA working group description

2017-10-06 Thread Jacob Hoffman-Andrews via Public
> 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

Re: [cabfpub] CAA working group description

2017-10-05 Thread Jeremy Rowley via Public
[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,

Re: [cabfpub] CAA working group description

2017-10-05 Thread Doug Beattie via Public
...@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

Re: [cabfpub] CAA working group description

2017-10-05 Thread Jacob Hoffman-Andrews via Public
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 >

Re: [cabfpub] CAA working group description

2017-10-05 Thread Phillip via Public
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

Re: [cabfpub] CAA working group description

2017-10-05 Thread Ryan Sleevi via Public
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

Re: [cabfpub] CAA working group description

2017-10-05 Thread Jacob Hoffman-Andrews via Public
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

Re: [cabfpub] CAA working group description

2017-10-04 Thread Phillip via Public
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 &

[cabfpub] CAA working group description

2017-10-04 Thread Geoff Keating via Public
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