<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 6:03 AM, Gervase Markham <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gerv@mozilla.org" target="_blank">gerv@mozilla.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">On 10/10/17 17:53, Ryan Sleevi wrote:<br>
> Do you see a problem with the BRs requiring it be posted to a CABF list?<br>
> That is, could you elaborate on what the advantages are of having<br>
> multiple root programs require disclosure versus providing a central<br>
> clearing house?<br>
<br>
</span>Well, from our perspective, we'll want it posted where we want it<br>
anyway. Making the CAB Forum maintain a list (which can be posted to by<br>
any CA, not just members, and so has to be spam-proofed, moderated etc.)<br>
just seems like work that someone would have to do that would be of no<br>
value to us.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The questions@ list doesn't suffer any of these problems. What makes you believe this is a reasonable conclusion to reach for a new list?</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">> Would you agree that there is separate value from having a root store<br>
> disclosure (which can affect how the root program itself behaves with<br>
> respect to a particular member) versus having an open, public disclosure<br>
> in a vendor-neutral way (which can allow for improvements to the BRs and<br>
> identifying problematic scenarios in a vendor-neutral way)? <br>
<br>
</span>I think improvements to the BRs will be driven by the root programs<br>
anyway, so I'm not seeing significant value (and I do see significant<br>
work for someone) in a vendor-neutral list. But if you can find someone<br>
to run it, I wouldn't vote against a ballot which required it.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I think this is a fairly misguided view of the value of the CA/Browser Forum, then. While it's certainly true that requirements are driven by the browsers, CAs have provided valuable feedback for ways in which language can be improved or requirements clarified. It seems harshly dismissive to suggest that no such value can be driven from the transparent involvement and awareness of the challenges faced in the ecosystem, which may not rise to the level of what a root store deems a security-relevant incident, but which highlights potentially unreasonable expectations.</div><div><br></div><div>Your further reply again suggests there's some new set of requirements you feel are necessary and critical - that is, "if you can find someone to run it" - when the Forum itself has shown quite capable of running the questions@ list for such a purpose.</div><div><br></div><div>I do hope you can recognize the inherent value in having such a vendor-neutral list, one which can allow the discovery of trends and patterns of issues in which the BRs may be either overly restrictive or insufficiently clear, in a way that the Forum itself can resolve those matters, rather than suggesting they must be 'laundered' to the Forum by some browser. </div></div></div></div>