<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.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
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.im
{mso-style-name:im;}
span.EmailStyle19
{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'>Let’s get the list of items the WG members want to tackle first and then decide whether each is in scope of the WG and how to limit the WG to set deliverables. I’m know there are items people wanted to tackle, but I haven’t received emails yet on what these are.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><a name="_MailEndCompose"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></a></p><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'></span><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'> Public [mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Ryan Sleevi via Public<br><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, November 10, 2016 11:16 AM<br><b>To:</b> CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public@cabforum.org><br><b>Cc:</b> Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [cabfpub] Validation WG<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>I think part of the concern, as seen in other SDOs, is that the broader the charter, the harder it is for members to stay focused on a single topic/issue, and the broader the time and energy committment means.<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Having self-shuttering WGs provides benefit because it keeps WGs focused on a concrete goal or deadline, and then allows for periodic re-evaluation of whether this is the thing to work on and to continue working on.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Without that, you end up with a large initial group, it loses members through attrition, and then you have an insular group producing stuff with the imprimatur of consensus. A great example of this is the IETF's PKIX WG, which was a veritable zombie in the years leading up to its shuttering. Now, more specific, focused groups have issued to try and address specific issues (e.g. LAMPS, CURDLE) that might have otherwise fell into an 'umbrella'<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>So there is definite benefit to avoiding 'parking lot' WGs, both short and long term. I don't believe it's as significant issue right now, in this specific case, but I think more broadly speaking, if validation WG wants to continue to take on new work, we should look to try to call for consensus with objectives before doing anything too substantive.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 10:08 AM, Dean Coclin via Public <<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org" target="_blank">public@cabforum.org</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in'><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>I would say that "Validation" is an ongoing topic of continuing change and<br>update. Instead of burdening the entire forum every time a change or<br>improvement to validation takes place, this group is the appropriate "parking<br>lot" for discussion/investigation. They can then produce the "one or more<br>documents offering options to the Forum for validation.." (taken from the<br>ballot).<br><br>If you recall the history of this group started as the EV Working Group and<br>focused originally on EV vetting methods. But as we came across non-EV<br>situations, the Forum decided to expand the scope of the original group and<br>become a "catch all" for anything validation related. Hence it is difficult to<br>put a specific deliverable given this scope.<br><br>Dean<br><br><span class=im>-----Original Message-----</span><br><span class=im>From: Gervase Markham [mailto:<a href="mailto:gerv@mozilla.org">gerv@mozilla.org</a>]</span><br><span class=im>Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2016 10:38 AM</span><br><span class=im>To: Dean Coclin <<a href="mailto:Dean_Coclin@symantec.com">Dean_Coclin@symantec.com</a>>; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion</span><br><span class=im>List <<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org">public@cabforum.org</a>></span><br><span class=im>Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Validation WG</span><o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>On 07/11/16 17:38, Dean Coclin wrote:<br>> In my opinion, this working group was properly chartered in Ballot<br>> 143 (which I note Mozilla voted YES). The working group was never<br>> formally terminated but rather was put in a "dormant" status since the<br>> production of ballot 169. I think working group members needed a break<br>> after 1.5 years of work. Restarting the work of this group shouldn't<br>> require a ballot unless the scope has changed.<br><br>That sounds fine to me under the circumstances. Although I would second Ryan's<br>call for careful minuting - this is an area that we know has IPR mines buried<br>in it.<br><br>> We haven't been putting in "end dates" for working groups rather,<br>> deliverables which more accurately reflect the mission of the group.<br><br>But as currently chartered, the Validation WG has no end date and no<br>deliverable whose delivery would terminate the group, right?<br><br>Gerv<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><br>_______________________________________________<br>Public mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Public@cabforum.org">Public@cabforum.org</a><br><a href="https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public" target="_blank">https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public</a><o:p></o:p></p></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></body></html>