<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=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",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;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@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"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Not sure what you mean by a snapshot, Ryan, or why it’s relevant to the work of the (new) PAG at this time.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">The draft ballot to update domain confirmation methods has been widely circulated among the CABF members for six months, and was discussed at length at the face to face meeting
in Zurich. It was further discussed at length in our biweekly calls on July 2 and 16. On the last call, the Validation Working Group made further suggestions to the last draft of the ballot, which included nine separately enumerated authentication methods
(basically our current six methods, plus three new ones) – I think the attached July 2 draft was the last version the VGW discussed.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Ben agreed at the end of our last VWG call to make certain edits and updates to the draft for our next VWG call on this Thursday, July 30 – and everyone is welcome to participate
on that call. None of us on the VWG have ever seen Ben’s most recent draft (which he circulated only to the PAG list – not sure why), but I can tell you that the approach of this new draft does not represent what we discussed at our last VWG meeting, and
it doesn’t look like a good approach to me for the reasons I stated on the VWG list. So at this point, it’s just a new proposal from Ben that no one on the VGW has considered.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">The jurisdiction of the PAG is clearly spelled out by the IPR Agreement we all signed, and is focused on comparing proposed and existing BRs / EVGL to disclosed patents. I
think the PAG is jumping the gun if it starts looking at individual drafts that have never been considered by the relevant working group, and it may not be a good use of the PAG’s time.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi@google.com]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, July 28, 2015 5:49 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Kirk Hall (RD-US)<br>
<b>Cc:</b> pag@cabforum.org; CABFPub; validation@cabforum.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [cabfPAG] Function of the PAG<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><br>
On Jul 28, 2015 5:39 PM, "<a href="mailto:kirk_hall@trendmicro.com">kirk_hall@trendmicro.com</a>" <<a href="mailto:kirk_hall@trendmicro.com">kirk_hall@trendmicro.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>> the purpose of the PAG is not to draft new Baseline Requirements or anything similar.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>And the PAG isn't. I'm not sure how you reached the conclusion or belief that it is.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>> Instead, the purpose of the PAG is to compare existing or proposed Baseline Requirements or EV Guidelines against the patents disclosed for CABF members and where a conflict is seen (e.g., a BR or EVGL seems to infringed on someone’s disclosed patents),
to report back to the Forum for consideration. See Section 7 below (the numbering errors are in the original).
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>And the PAG was formed, in part, to ensure there is a common understanding and agreement as to how those obligations and the IPR policy actually apply.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>> The PAG is not the place to create or discuss new BRs or EVGLs. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>And it isn't, so I'm surprised to see it suggested somehow that it is.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>> Ben’s draft on domain confirmation methods that was just circulated to the PAG list is something the Validation Working Group has never seen (and I’m not sure it will be supported), so I’m not sure of its relevance to the work of the PAG.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>What Ben circulated is what is being circulated in the Validation WG as a response to members within the validation WG. It was provided as a snapshot for the current thinking. It is a refinement of what has been actively discussed in past Validation WG activities,
including the F2F.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>This is not being proposed as something the PAG is taking on - it's a snapshot of the working draft of activity going on in the Validation WG.<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>