<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:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@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;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Segoe UI Symbol";
panose-1:2 11 5 2 4 2 4 2 2 3;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Myriad Set Pro";
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
/* 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;}
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:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{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>I agree we can probably come to a solution on the subcommittee issue very quickly. It may not even need to be resolved if everyone just agrees that WGs are obviously allowed to designate their own subcommittees as they see fit.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I think part of the problem is that various models have been discussed at various points, and the Governance Reform working group (understandably) settled on one model. However that decision has subtle consequences that may not have been fully appreciated.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I agree that IP separation is one of the main concerns driving the governance reform effort. I desperately want to have the Code Signing WG back, which was one of the main drivers of the IP separation. The Code Signing WG and Server Certificate WGs really do need to be independent. Any solution we come up really needs to preserve that.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>So, I think subcommittees are clear, and WGs on disjoint certificate use cases are clear. The question I still have is how to handle “cross functional” WGs, like the Network Security LWG or the hypothetical “Baseline Baseline” WG.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>A possible solution is that when a WG wants to depend on the output of another WG, it simply requires its members to also be members of the WG that it wants to rely upon. I think that would solve Wayne’s concern. For example, both the Code Signing WG and Server Certificate WG could each require their members to be members of the Fundamental CA Security WG, while not requiring membership in each other. That way anything created by the Fundamental CA Security WG has already been vetted for IPR concerns and can be relied upon by both the Code Signing WG and the Server Certificate WG (for example).<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Another possible solution is that the Network Security WG comes up with it’s own document with its own members under its own IPR process, and publishes it. The Server Certificate WG can then have a ballot to adopt the Network Security WG’s work product, and members of the Server Certificate WG would review the work product for IPR concerns as part of the Server Certificate WG ballot review process. I suspect this is probably how members of the governance reform working group expected it to work, though I’m speculating (I was unfortunately busy with other things over the last six months and haven’t been able to participate as much as I would have liked to).<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>There are probably other solutions. I don’t think there are an major landmines here, but it’s something we should carefully consider.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>-Tim<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><a name="_MailEndCompose"><o:p> </o:p></a></p><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'></span><div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt'><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b>From:</b> vfournier@apple.com [mailto:vfournier@apple.com] <br><b>Sent:</b> Monday, January 22, 2018 12:38 PM<br><b>To:</b> Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek@digicert.com><br><b>Cc:</b> Gervase Markham <gerv@mozilla.org>; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public@cabforum.org>; Wayne Thayer <wthayer@mozilla.com><br><b>Subject:</b> Pre-Ballot 206 - Amendment to IPR Policy & Bylaws re Working Group Formation<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>We can add the subcommittee language to the Bylaws for clarity - that is not a problem. As the Governance WG was drafting the documents, we didn’t think subcommittees would be needed with the new multi-WG structure - but if they are needed we can restore the language. <o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>How do you want to be able to introduce one WGs work product to another WG? One of the principle goals of this new model was to keep IPR commitments within the WG that a member is participating in. Are you now saying that you want IPR commitments to apply across all WGs so you can share all work across all WGs? That would essentially be the IP model the Forum has now, where members have IP commitments across the entire Forum. <o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>I’m surprised these concerns are coming up now, even though we’ve been discussing these documents for over a year. I wonder if perhaps we’re not all converged on the same model?<o:p></o:p></p><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black'><br><br><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black'>Best regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black'>Virginia Fournier<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black'>Senior Standards Counsel<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Myriad Set Pro",serif;color:#5E5E5E'></span><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black'> Apple Inc.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Segoe UI Symbol",sans-serif;color:black'>☏</span><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black'> 669-227-9595<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Segoe UI Symbol",sans-serif;color:black'>✉︎</span><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black'> <a href="mailto:vmf@apple.com">vmf@apple.com</a></span><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#4787FF'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div></div></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Jan 22, 2018, at 10:16 AM, Tim Hollebeek <<a href="mailto:tim.hollebeek@digicert.com">tim.hollebeek@digicert.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal>Yes. We definitely don't want multiple WGs covering server certificates.<br>The existing WGs in that category need to either go away, or become<br>subcommittees of the Server Certificate WG.<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><br>The problem is this isn't entirely true.<br><br>The Validation LWG probably should be a subcommittee of the Server<br>Certificate WG. Can it be less formal than it is today (e.g. no charter)? <br>Perhaps. Probably the same for the Policy LWG.<br><br>OTOH, the Network Security LWG is addressing issues that are more<br>likely to apply across multiple different WGs, since they are generic<br>issues about how to securely run a certificate authority. Whether the<br>certificates are for Web PKI or Email or Code Signing doesn't really<br>matter. <br><br>We have also discussed at previous F2Fs a "Baseline Baseline" WG <br>that would handle things like EKUs and general compliance issues with <br>RFC 5280. Those would also apply to multiple working groups.<br><br>I was originally of the opinion that we could probably work that all<br>out after governance reform, but now I'm very concerned about<br>Wayne's concern that such generally applicable working groups<br>might have trouble introducing their work product into other WGs<br>due to IPR issues.<br><br>That would be a very unfortunate result of the governance reform<br>effort if it turned out to be true.<br><br>-Tim<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></body></html>