<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.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.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><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Agreed – I’d love to know where the browsers are/see themselves going. It’ll help us prepare users for changes better.<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><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><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>Peter Bowen via Public<br><b>Sent:</b> Friday, February 10, 2017 1:33 PM<br><b>To:</b> CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public@cabforum.org><br><b>Cc:</b> Peter Bowen <pzb@amzn.com><br><b>Subject:</b> [cabfpub] Future changes in the WebPKI<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Feb 10, 2017, at 11:51 AM, Dean Coclin via Public <<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org">public@cabforum.org</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Building consensus in meetings is different than building consensus for a ballot. Discussions happen in meetings without concrete proposals, as was shown in the chart I posted earlier from the Zurich meeting. I can’t recall anyone coming out before this ballot seeking consensus for a 1 year validity effective in 4 months. So yes, I do think that now that a formal proposal (ballot) has been issued, a serious attempt to build consensus should be undertaken. This will likely take more than 2 weeks of online back and forth. We have a F2F coming up in 40 days, giving folks time to reach out and get more input. I do believe that everyone wants to improve security but as the scattering of input shows, this must be balanced with the user constituency needs which really haven’t been fully vetted for THIS particular proposal. </span><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></div></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>My impression is that several different browsers (or ASSes if you want) have visions/roadmaps for what they want from contracted CAs long term. I don’t think these have been clearly shared with the Forum, probably because it would disclose product roadmaps. This is why I suggested the quasi-anonymous futures topic at the next F2F, but I would even like it better if they could just come straight out and say “our ideal state is X, help us get there”.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Thanks,<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Peter<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></body></html>