All,

 

Typo-corrected draft minutes can be found below.

 

Attendees:

Aaron Gable - (Let's Encrypt), Aaron Poulsen - (Amazon), Aneta 
Wojtczak-Iwanicka - (Microsoft), Ben Wilson - (Mozilla), Bruce Morton - 
(Entrust), Cade Cairns - (Google), Chris Clements - (Google), Clint Wilson - 
(Apple), Corey Rasmussen - (OATI), Dimitris Zacharopoulos - (HARICA), Doug 
Beattie - (GlobalSign), Dustin Hollenback - (Microsoft), Enrico Entschew - 
(D-TRUST), Gurleen Grewal - (Google), Janet Hines - (VikingCloud), Johnny 
Reading - (GoDaddy), Joseph Ramm - (OATI), Li-Chun Chen - (Chunghwa Telecom), 
Michael Slaughter - (Amazon), Michelle Coon - (OATI), Miguel Sanchez - 
(Google), Nargis Mannan - (VikingCloud), Nate Smith - (GoDaddy), Paul van 
Brouwershaven - (Entrust), Pedro Fuentes - (OISTE Foundation), Pekka Lahtiharju 
- (Telia Company), Rebecca Kelley - (Apple), Rollin Yu - (TrustAsia 
Technologies, Inc.), Ryan Dickson - (Google), Tim Hollebeek - (DigiCert), 
Tobias Josefowitz - (Opera Software AS), Trevoli Ponds-White - (Amazon), Wayne 
Thayer - (Fastly)

 

Antitrust Statement

Tim Hollebeek read the Antitrust Statement

 

Multi-perspective draft ballot

Ryan presented 
(https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1HazM2Z6hOrQc0aCmdaR_UcX49iLDSrCmlQSEwUsaVxY/edit?usp=sharing)
 and update on the progress of the multi-perspective DCV ballot.

 

Discussion points outside of the presentation content:

*       Tim raised an issue with at least one of the organizations who are 
collaborating on the proposal not having signed an IPR agreement. Ryan 
mentioned he would pursuit this issue.
*       Doug asked for clarification on if checking CAA records through 
multiple network perspectives will also be part of this ballot. Ryan confirmed 
this is the case.
*       Tim proposes hardening the system security requirements over the 
currently proposed ones, in where most of these are a SHOULD. Ryan clarified 
that they’re trying to solve this without causing issued for audits.

 

Continuation of the discussion from the F2F on CNAME delegation to the CA for 
domain validation

*       Ben requested the old ballot discussion link. Tim will provide this.
*       Ben mentions an issue with just allowing CAs to do delegated domain 
validation without any specifications, and a particular CA patenting the best 
method. We’re better off specifying in the guidelines how CAs need to do it.
*       Clint tried to find CAs that are currently performing domain 
validations for their customers and was not able to find any. As such he’s not 
sure why there seems to be urgency on resolving this issue.
*       Aaron points out that it seems a lot of CA resellers currently are 
doing this already, which is an issue, however we as CA/B can only impose rules 
on CAs, not directly on their resellers. As such it seems we cannot completely 
mitigate this issue.
*       Trevoli mentions that we have a lot of focus on automation and anything 
supporting automation. Every time we bring this up, this proposal surfaces, and 
enabling / allowing this would be a tool in furthering our automation goals.
*       Clint agrees with Trevoli’s comments and adds that we need to add 
proper requirements and perform a risk assessment on what can go right and 
wrong.


The discussion will be continued on the next validation call.

 

Next Meeting:

June 29, 2023

 

 

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

_______________________________________________
Validation mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/validation

Reply via email to