Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 203: Formation of Network Security Working Group (v2)

2017-06-13 Thread Gervase Markham via Public
On 05/06/17 21:07, Gervase Markham wrote: > Ballot 203: Formation of Network Security Working Group (v2) Voting has begun on this ballot. Mozilla votes YES. Gerv ___ Public mailing list Public@cabforum.org https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public

Re: [cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: CA/Browser Face to Face Meeting 41 Agenda – Berlin

2017-06-13 Thread Peter Bowen via Public
> On Jun 13, 2017, at 2:28 PM, Ryan Sleevi via Public > wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 5:00 PM, Kirk Hall via Public > wrote: > On your first question - some major enterprise users would like to present > their

Re: [cabfpub] Send us you list of current problems with the Network Security Guidelines

2017-06-13 Thread Kirk Hall via Public
I'm still uncertain what the logic is behind objections to collecting NetSec comments from people (can be CAs, auditors, even browsers) in a master list, as opposed to making people post their concerns directly in their own names - that has not been spelled out. And I would note that both

Re: [cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: CA/Browser Face to Face Meeting 41 Agenda – Berlin

2017-06-13 Thread Kirk Hall via Public
On your first question - some major enterprise users would like to present their ideas and concerns about SSL certificate rules, changes, etc. from their perspective, which I know the browsers have wanted (rather than hearing it reported by the CAs who provide the certs to enterprise

Re: [cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: CA/Browser Face to Face Meeting 41 Agenda – Berlin

2017-06-13 Thread Ryan Sleevi via Public
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 5:00 PM, Kirk Hall via Public wrote: > On your first question - some major enterprise users would like to present > their ideas and concerns about SSL certificate rules, changes, etc. from > their perspective, which I know the browsers have wanted

Re: [cabfpub] Send us you list of current problems with the Network Security Guidelines

2017-06-13 Thread Ryan Sleevi via Public
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 4:41 PM, Kirk Hall wrote: > I'm still uncertain what the logic is behind objections to collecting > NetSec comments from people (can be CAs, auditors, even browsers) in a > master list, as opposed to making people post their concerns

Re: [cabfpub] [Ext] Fixup ballot for CAA

2017-06-13 Thread Paul Hoffman via Public
On Jun 13, 2017, at 8:14 AM, Gervase Markham via Public wrote: > > On 13/06/17 15:33, Phillip via Public wrote: >> I do not see a good argument for including the text in the BR and a good >> reason not to. > > Well, you may not consider it a good argument, but the

Re: [cabfpub] [Ext] Fixup ballot for CAA

2017-06-13 Thread Phillip via Public
I think what Paul was actually saying was 'hold on a sec, nobody seems to have thought of using this for that'. And it is a fair point. But not the only one. Getting the status of the errata changed is a different matter. The reason I have not wanted to go forward is that every time I get

Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 203: Formation of Network Security Working Group (v2)

2017-06-13 Thread Wayne Thayer via Public
GoDaddy votes Yes. From: Public on behalf of Gervase Markham via Public Reply-To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List Date: Monday, June 5, 2017 at 1:07 PM To: CABFPub Cc: Gervase Markham

Re: [cabfpub] [Ext] Fixup ballot for CAA

2017-06-13 Thread Gervase Markham via Public
On 13/06/17 15:33, Phillip via Public wrote: > I do not see a good argument for including the text in the BR and a good > reason not to. Well, you may not consider it a good argument, but the recommendation of ICANN's Principal Technologist is certainly _an_ argument. > One of the things that we