<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class="">How about this? It makes it clearer that system security is likely part of the guideline.<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><div style="margin: 0px; color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; widows: 2; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="">1. To specify one or more guidelines, which may include subject validation and certificate system security requirements,<span style="font-size: 12.8px;" class=""> for certificates that allow a key usage of id-kp-emaiProtection, and to define acceptable practices for the issuance and management of certificates used to sign and/or encrypt emails.</span></div><div style="margin: 0px; color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; widows: 2; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=""><u class=""></u></div><div style="margin: 0px; color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; widows: 2; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=""><u class=""></u> <u class=""></u></div><div style="margin: 0px; color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; widows: 2; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="">2. To update such guidelines from time to time, including addressing existing and emerging threats, including responsibility for the maintenance of and future amendments to such guidelines.</div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On May 18, 2018, at 8:44 AM, Ryan Sleevi <<a href="mailto:sleevi@google.com" class="">sleevi@google.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" class=""><div dir="ltr" class="">I don't think the proposed charter does that then :) In copying from the other proposals, it looks to explicitly propose the creation of a new, separate, and wholly independent document - hence the objection, and which now that we understand the basis of that objection, seems like we agree on why it'd be objectionable :)</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br class=""><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 11:26 AM, Tim Hollebeek <span dir="ltr" class=""><<a href="mailto:tim.hollebeek@digicert.com" target="_blank" class="">tim.hollebeek@digicert.com</a>></span> wrote:<br class=""><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div lang="EN-US" class=""><div class="gmail-m_-1949731290990887357WordSection1"><p class="MsoNormal">That is accurate.<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u class=""></u> <u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">-Tim<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u class=""></u> <u class=""></u></p><div style="border-top:none;border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:1.5pt solid blue;padding:0in 0in 0in 4pt" class=""><div class=""><div style="border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:none;border-top:1pt solid rgb(225,225,225);padding:3pt 0in 0in" class=""><p class="MsoNormal"><b class="">From:</b> Peter Bowen [mailto:<a href="mailto:pzb@amzn.com" target="_blank" class="">pzb@amzn.com</a>] <br class=""><b class="">Sent:</b> Friday, May 18, 2018 11:26 AM<br class=""><b class="">To:</b> Tim Hollebeek <<a href="mailto:tim.hollebeek@digicert.com" target="_blank" class="">tim.hollebeek@digicert.com</a>>; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org" target="_blank" class="">public@cabforum.org</a>><br class=""><b class="">Cc:</b> Jos Purvis (jopurvis) <<a href="mailto:jopurvis@cisco.com" target="_blank" class="">jopurvis@cisco.com</a>>; Ryan Sleevi <<a href="mailto:sleevi@google.com" target="_blank" class="">sleevi@google.com</a>></p><div class=""><div class="gmail-h5"><br class=""><b class="">Subject:</b> Re: [cabfpub] For Discussion: S/MIME Working Group Charter<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></div></div><div class=""><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div></div></div><div class=""><div class="gmail-h5"><p class="MsoNormal"><u class=""></u> <u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">Tim,<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal"><u class=""></u> <u class=""></u></p></div><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal">It seems your intent was to call out in the charter that any Guideline needs to include not only validation requirements but CA infrastructure security requirements as well. Is that accurate?<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal"><u class=""></u> <u class=""></u></p></div><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal">Thanks,<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal">Peter<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal"><br class=""><br class=""><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><blockquote style="margin-top:5pt;margin-bottom:5pt" class=""><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal">On May 18, 2018, at 8:23 AM, Tim Hollebeek via Public <<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org" target="_blank" class="">public@cabforum.org</a>> wrote:<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div><p class="MsoNormal"><u class=""></u> <u class=""></u></p><div class=""><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal">Adopting the existing NSG by reference is exactly what I think the S/MIME group should do.<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal"> <u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal">We should keep them the same and in sync across all WGs whenever possible.<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal"> <u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal">-Tim<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal"> <u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div><div style="border-top:none;border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:1.5pt solid blue;padding:0in 0in 0in 4pt" class=""><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif" class="">To stave that off, I’d like to accelerate moving the NSG work to a top-level Forum group and get it out of the Server Certificate group. The only complication I see is that by moving it to a top-level group, we’d have to resolve whether it becomes across-the-board mandatory, or something that each WG can adopt as a requirement or not as they see fit. It sounds like this is highlighting the need to accomplish that sooner rather than later; for the time being, would it work for the nascent S/MIME WG to simply adopt the existing NSG by reference?</span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif" class=""> </span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif" class="">-- Jos</span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div><div class=""><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Consolas" class=""> </span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Consolas" class="">-- <br class="">Jos Purvis (<a href="mailto:jopurvis@cisco.com" target="_blank" class=""><span style="color:purple" class="">jopurvis@cisco.com</span></a>)<br class="">.:|:.:|:. cisco systems | Cryptographic Services<br class="">PGP: 0xFD802FEE07D19105 | +1 919.991.9114 (desk)</span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div></div><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif" class=""> </span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif" class=""> </span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div><div style="border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:none;border-top:1pt solid rgb(181,196,223);padding:3pt 0in 0in" class=""><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal"><b class=""><span style="font-size:12pt" class="">From:<span class="gmail-m_-1949731290990887357apple-converted-space"> </span></span></b><span style="font-size:12pt" class="">Public <<a href="mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org" target="_blank" class=""><span style="color:purple" class="">public-bounces@cabforum.org</span></a>> on behalf of Tim Hollebeek via Public <<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org" target="_blank" class=""><span style="color:purple" class="">public@cabforum.org</span></a>><br class=""><b class="">Reply-To:<span class="gmail-m_-1949731290990887357apple-converted-space"> </span></b>Tim Hollebeek <<a href="mailto:tim.hollebeek@digicert.com" target="_blank" class=""><span style="color:purple" class="">tim.hollebeek@digicert.com</span></a>>, CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org" target="_blank" class=""><span style="color:purple" class="">public@cabforum.org</span></a>><br class=""><b class="">Date:<span class="gmail-m_-1949731290990887357apple-converted-space"> </span></b>Friday, 18 May, 2018 at 10:12<span class="gmail-m_-1949731290990887357apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><b class="">To:<span class="gmail-m_-1949731290990887357apple-converted-space"> </span></b>Ryan Sleevi <<a href="mailto:sleevi@google.com" target="_blank" class=""><span style="color:purple" class="">sleevi@google.com</span></a>><br class=""><b class="">Cc:<span class="gmail-m_-1949731290990887357apple-converted-space"> </span></b>CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org" target="_blank" class=""><span style="color:purple" class="">public@cabforum.org</span></a>><br class=""><b class="">Subject:<span class="gmail-m_-1949731290990887357apple-converted-space"> </span></b>Re: [cabfpub] For Discussion: S/MIME Working Group Charter</span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div></div><div class=""><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal"> <u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div></div><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal">I’m interested in hearing feedback from the entire forum about what we can pass.<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal"> <u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal">I’m less interested in rehashing old debates and holding this charter hostage to them.<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal"> <u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal">The idea that NetSec is a set of cross-cutting requirements that applies to all working groups has been mentioned many times and has never been controversial, so I’m not sure how it morphed into a fundamental objection.<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal"> <u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal">-Tim<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal"> <u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div><div style="border-top:none;border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:1.5pt solid blue;padding:0in 0in 0in 4pt" class=""><div class=""><div style="border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:none;border-top:1pt solid rgb(225,225,225);padding:3pt 0in 0in" class=""><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal"><b class="">From:</b><span class="gmail-m_-1949731290990887357apple-converted-space"> </span>Ryan Sleevi [<a href="mailto:sleevi@google.com" target="_blank" class=""><span style="color:purple" class="">mailto:sleevi@google.com</span></a>]<span class="gmail-m_-1949731290990887357apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><b class="">Sent:</b><span class="gmail-m_-1949731290990887357apple-converted-space"> </span>Friday, May 18, 2018 10:06 AM<br class=""><b class="">To:</b><span class="gmail-m_-1949731290990887357apple-converted-space"> </span>Tim Hollebeek <<a href="mailto:tim.hollebeek@digicert.com" target="_blank" class=""><span style="color:purple" class="">tim.hollebeek@digicert.com</span></a>><br class=""><b class="">Cc:</b><span class="gmail-m_-1949731290990887357apple-converted-space"> </span>CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org" target="_blank" class=""><span style="color:purple" class="">public@cabforum.org</span></a>>; Dimitris Zacharopoulos <<a href="mailto:jimmy@it.auth.gr" target="_blank" class=""><span style="color:purple" class="">jimmy@it.auth.gr</span></a>><br class=""><b class="">Subject:</b><span class="gmail-m_-1949731290990887357apple-converted-space"> </span>Re: [cabfpub] For Discussion: S/MIME Working Group Charter<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div></div></div><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal"> <u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div><div class=""><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal">Tim,<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div><div class=""><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal"> <u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div></div><div class=""><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal">I'm not clear - are you saying that you have no intention of removing the proposal for a separate Network Security document from the S/MIME charter? This is a real and fundamental objection, and I hope I've articulated why it's problematic in a charter, and further, problematic in scope of activities. I'm hoping you can clearly articulate the value, concretely demonstrating why this is an immediate and cross-cutting problem to be solved (and at the potential of conflict with other bits). Your proposal - for example, to split NetSec into a separate CWG - demonstrates how and why it's explicitly unnecessary to include in a draft charter.<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div></div><div class=""><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal"> <u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div></div><div class=""><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal">If you're not open to suggestions, then it seems the only alternative is to provide a counter-charter proposal, and have a run-off, and that seems like a very silly thing to do, when there's a real opportunity to collaborate here, and that you seem to be outright rejecting without justification.<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div></div><div class=""><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal"> <u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div></div><div class=""><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal">With respect to the notion of EV for S/MIME, I again reiterate that it's wholly unnecessary to incorporate within the charter. Beyond being a clearly marketing concept - in which it tries to distinguish itself from the existing space - it's something that as a scope of work that, if there is demonstrable value in such levels of validation, it can be incorporated within a BRs. If you can't get a BRs you don't believe is secure for purpose, then you're explicitly stating in the goal of WG is to fail in the mission. Conversely, if you get a BRs that are, then you don't necessarily need an "extended" version.<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div></div><div class=""><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal"> <u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div></div><div class=""><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal">My take away from these responses is that you're not actually interested in feedback, as I'm trying to give clear and actionable explanations and rationale for these positions. I can understand if you disagree, but is there an opportunity here to collaborate on a sensible baseline, and to address this feedback, or are you setting out a charter that seeks to outright reject concerns that could help us find productive solutions, quicker?<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div></div></div><div class=""><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal"> <u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div><div class=""><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal">On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 9:25 AM, Tim Hollebeek <<a href="mailto:tim.hollebeek@digicert.com" target="_blank" class=""><span style="color:purple" class="">tim.hollebeek@digicert.com</span></a>> wrote:<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div><blockquote style="border-top:none;border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:1pt solid rgb(204,204,204);padding:0in 0in 0in 6pt;margin:5pt 0in 5pt 4.8pt" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal">I agree mixing ClientAuth and S/MIME is a bad idea.<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal"> <u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal">NetSec is needed by all WGs. It’s not getting removed. Hopefully all WGs will try to to keep their versions and effective dates in sync, to prevent audit pains. As we’ve discussed several times, the NetSec legacy WG is probably going to convert itself into a top level WG. It will the approve documents that can be incorporated by other WGs by reference. Or just used in conjunction with other WG products.<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal"> <u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal">Identity and validation is another important cross-cutting concern. It isn’t a “pet marketing product”.<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal"> <u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal">-Tim<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal"> <u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div><div style="border-top:none;border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:1.5pt solid blue;padding:0in 0in 0in 4pt" class=""><div class=""><div style="border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:none;border-top:1pt solid rgb(225,225,225);padding:3pt 0in 0in" class=""><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="gmail-m_-1949731290990887357gmail-"><b class="">From:</b></span><span class="gmail-m_-1949731290990887357apple-converted-space"> </span><span class="gmail-m_-1949731290990887357gmail-">Public [mailto:<a href="mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org" target="_blank" class=""><span style="color:purple" class="">public-bounces@<wbr class="">cabforum.org</span></a>]</span><span class="gmail-m_-1949731290990887357apple-converted-space"> </span><span class="gmail-m_-1949731290990887357gmail-"><b class="">On Behalf Of</b></span><span class="gmail-m_-1949731290990887357apple-converted-space"><b class=""> </b></span><span class="gmail-m_-1949731290990887357gmail-">Ryan Sleevi via Public</span><br class=""><b class="">Sent:</b><span class="gmail-m_-1949731290990887357apple-converted-space"> </span>Friday, May 18, 2018 9:18 AM<br class=""><b class="">To:</b><span class="gmail-m_-1949731290990887357apple-converted-space"> </span>Dimitris Zacharopoulos <<a href="mailto:jimmy@it.auth.gr" target="_blank" class=""><span style="color:purple" class="">jimmy@it.auth.gr</span></a>>; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org" target="_blank" class=""><span style="color:purple" class="">public@cabforum.org</span></a>><br class=""><span class="gmail-m_-1949731290990887357gmail-"><b class="">Subject:</b></span><span class="gmail-m_-1949731290990887357apple-converted-space"> </span><span class="gmail-m_-1949731290990887357gmail-">Re: [cabfpub] For Discussion: S/MIME Working Group Charter</span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div></div></div><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal"> <u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div><div class=""><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal"> <u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div><div class=""><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal"> <u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div><div class=""><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal">On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 12:57 AM, Dimitris Zacharopoulos via Public <<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org" target="_blank" class=""><span style="color:purple" class="">public@cabforum.org</span></a>> wrote:<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div><div class=""><div class=""><blockquote style="border-top:none;border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:1pt solid rgb(204,204,204);padding:0in 0in 0in 6pt;margin:5pt 0in 5pt 4.8pt" class=""><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span class="gmail-m_-1949731290990887357gmail-m5082498152913763417gmail-"> </span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><div class=""><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal">On 18/5/2018 2:51 πμ, Ryan Sleevi via Public wrote:<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div></div><blockquote style="margin-top:5pt;margin-bottom:5pt" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal">I don't think it's a cross-EKU situation, though, but I'm glad we're in agreement.<span class="gmail-m_-1949731290990887357apple-converted-space"> </span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div><div class=""><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal"> <u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div></div><div class=""><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal">An email server certificate is an id-kp-serverAuth EKU. That's already covered by another WG<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div></div></div></blockquote><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal"><br class="">I sincerely hope that id-kp-clientAuth EKU will also be covered by this WG since there will be common validation requirements for Subject information, as with S/MIME. It seems too much overhead to spawn an entirely different WG to deal just with clientAuth.<br class=""><br class="">If people agree, how about using the name "Client and S/MIME Certificate WG" which seems aligned with the "Server Certificate WG"?<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div></div></blockquote><div class=""><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal"> <u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div></div><div class=""><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal">As I've mentioned several times, it would be good to actually focus on a constrained, defined problem, before you proverbially try to boil the ocean.<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div></div><div class=""><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal"> <u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div></div><div class=""><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal">It is not obvious that there will be common validation requirements, because the id-kp-clientAuth situation has a vast dimension of possible uses and spectrum. It's not actually reflective of the deployed reality that the validation requirements are the same. It also is based on an entirely separate notion of identity.<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div></div><div class=""><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal"> <u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div></div><div class=""><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal">So no, I don't agree, because they really are substantially different in deployed reality - and an S/MIME WG is, in itself, a sizable undertaking just to get S/MIME BRs, due to the broad spectrum of client capabilities and CA past-practices - and the lifetime of extant certificates that presents unique challenges to defining a sensible and realistic profile.<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div></div><div class=""><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal"> <u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div></div><div class=""><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal">A good charter - one that leads to productive engagement from a broad set of participants while actually delivering meaningful improvements - is one that keeps itself narrowly focused on the task at hand, produces results, and then looks to recharter based on the things you knew were out there, but agreed not to discuss until you actually completed the work. That allows you to keep momentum, focus, and participation. Just look at the challenges each of our (legacy) WG has faced with a broad remit, in that the set of topics has made it difficult both to engage participation of the broader Forum and to actually make forward progress, because it's constantly having to deal with 'all these things' or trying to do 'all these things'.<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div></div><div class=""><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal"> <u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div></div><div class=""><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal">When we see narrowly focused ballots and efforts that try to solve a specific set of problems, then we make progress. The validation WG's effort at 3.2.2.4 is a prime example of that - a prolonged effort that directly benefited from being focused on that problem, and ruling some things (like 3.2.2.5) out of scope of the discussion in order to make progress on the narrow set.<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div></div><div class=""><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal"> <u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div></div><div class=""><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal">The same too is in the charter. Let's not try to encompass pet marketing projects (EV for S/MIME), "things we might need but we don't know why" (network security), or "things that are kinda related, but only in some domains" (id-kp-clientAuth). Let's focus on the problem at hand - S/MIME authentication - keeping the WG scoped narrowly and on task, and deliver something that can help users have faith in the Web PKI to deliver tangible benefits in that space, rather than the reality we have today.<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal"> <u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div></div></div></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif" class="">______________________________<wbr class="">_________________<br class="">Public mailing list<br class=""></span><a href="mailto:Public@cabforum.org" target="_blank" class=""><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;color:purple" class="">Public@cabforum.org</span></a><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif" class=""><br class=""></span><a href="https://clicktime.symantec.com/a/1/7onNLvmO9GUfgZ9GYsp8Vwaj_-r4OiPT9Z1o-F2DMgI=?d=lfaBq53v3yynj2JmaL82EvCVGPrITIM7kXUpp1q5kvRKGBn7zgzPaYIzFiv2KnUnnO97V8PMPA3b1d3EWqwEEZlB1V-sFdlkpepytiN_eYT-EQGI14RAQOqGfv9cuoflntSs9UvwvcTP3H1RSwhGWHkXzjZAloFEhj6lhVOgVbKk2QIh1rhagl06jOeBNqt_yXemgQn2CYA9YqmbUi3X_c45ZqJPNfG13nTQly5wKddYk8yw_zhDEgoOaNIxeoE5pL0zg4UdRmCNsdWcNSD7jvXb4I69Y7Yl07DiIuEhWF5vEte6N7DkxgQf-ITFuQSGPk6WIoYmhO4qfkiwdVE9RcyinfKkgg-o5vRO8efuUjaFDGo71dJJ0LipT_I39wEpjQbVq1Fzbrq4hubHSImqDcAyudk8pkAk6Cd2&u=https%3A%2F%2Fcabforum.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpublic" target="_blank" class=""><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;color:purple" class="">https://cabforum.org/mailman/<wbr class="">listinfo/public</span></a><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div></blockquote></div><p class="MsoNormal"><u class=""></u> <u class=""></u></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div>
</div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></body></html>