The VWG is a closed group and it is hard to engage properly when you don't
know what's going on. I feel that the VWG should spend more time getting
opinions from people such as myself whether by Phone, Skype, F2F or etc. It
will bring new ideas to the table which might not have been thought of
On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 12:44 PM, Ryan Sleevi wrote:
> Note that Interested Parties cannot participate in meetings, whether F2F
> or Phone, unless explicitly invited, nor participate on the Wiki or Members
> mail list.
>
> Agreed. The intent is for the Chair to extend meeting
On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 12:38 PM, James Burton wrote:
> I would like to spend some time in discussing extended validation vetting.
> I feel that extended validated is not vetted to enough to acceptable
> standards.
>
I want to be careful about trying to accomplish too much at
Note that Interested Parties cannot participate in meetings, whether F2F or
Phone, unless explicitly invited, nor participate on the Wiki or Members
mail list.
On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 2:38 PM, James Burton via Public wrote:
> That's an excellent idea.
>
> I would like to
That's an excellent idea.
I would like to spend some time in discussing extended validation vetting.
I feel that extended validated is not vetted to enough to acceptable
standards.
James
On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 7:21 PM, Wayne Thayer via Public wrote:
> Gerv and I, with
Wayne,
I think this is an excellent idea!
I’d recommend we not wait until the meeting and that the VWG sets up a
framework and collaboration site/document/wiki/repository where security
experts can start evaluating and documenting the pros and cons of the various
methods.
Doug
From: Public