<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Ben – I can’t be on this week’s call, but my suggestion was that we create a smaller working group to review the entire domain authentication process (the rules under the BRs and EVGL), with a deliverable of a memo outlining the 4-5 problem
area in our current rules, the likely reasons for the current language, and possible solutions (perhaps multiple alternatives). The working group would not be drafting proposed changes (maybe later) but instead would be summarizing all the comments and issues
to frame it for discussion by the entire Forum, in context.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I think we really need a comprehensive memo on this to avoid going in multiple, inconsistent directions when discussing potential amendments. If the Forum can reach tentative consensus on how we want to change things, the working group
could then draft language for review and editing by the Forum after discussion on the public list.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">If the members like this approach, I’d like to serve on the working group (and I would be willing to chair as well). It’s time for us to start reviewing and improving our standards (and making the language less complicated if possible
– some sections are so dense I can barely understand them)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> public-bounces@cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Ben Wilson<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, May 15, 2013 1:22 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> public@cabforum.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [cabfpub] CAB Forum Call This Thursday<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In preparation for the call this Thursday, could you all send me in your agenda items?
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I have Kirk’s request to talk about domain vetting. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I would like feedback on the Interested Party IPR Agreement.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Also, here are some potential discussion items:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Planning for Munich Meeting<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Update on code signing working group<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Update on member progress on NIST Reference CP review comments<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Update on status of CA/Browser implementation of Baseline Requirements<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Professional Opinion Letters<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Update on OCSP Stapling<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Update on Critical Name Constraints, EKUs, Technical Constraints and External CA Audit Exceptions<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>
<table><tr><td bgcolor=#ffffff><font color=#000000><pre><table class="TM_EMAIL_NOTICE"><tr><td><pre>
TREND MICRO EMAIL NOTICE
The information contained in this email and any attachments is confidential
and may be subject to copyright or other intellectual property protection.
If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to use or
disclose this information, and we request that you notify us by reply mail or
telephone and delete the original message from your mail system.
</pre></td></tr></table></pre></font></td></tr></table>