<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: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;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.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='color:#1F497D'>If we can’t rely on redlines then there is no point in including them. It creates confusion. I’d like to push on why they can’t faithfully reflect the ballot text if the ballot text is specifying changes to one or more documents. Not having redlines makes adds time for our team to review, and I’m assuming it also adds time for the majority of members.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b>From:</b> Public [mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Tim Hollebeek via Public<br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, May 23, 2018 11:01 AM<br><b>To:</b> Wayne Thayer <wthayer@mozilla.com><br><b>Cc:</b> CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public@cabforum.org><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: Voting Begins: Ballot 221: Two-Factor Authentication and Password Improvements<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I was trying to avoid issues we have had recently with redlines that don’t always faithfully reflect the ballot text, which is normative. I think you might be right and that the objection was to having to READ redlines, and not having to be able to WRITE redlines.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>If you’re right, we currently require redlines, but they cannot be relied upon. This seems odd to me, but our bylaws have had worse oddities.<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><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> Wayne Thayer [<a href="mailto:wthayer@mozilla.com">mailto:wthayer@mozilla.com</a>] <br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, May 23, 2018 12:48 PM<br><b>To:</b> Tim Hollebeek <<a href="mailto:tim.hollebeek@digicert.com">tim.hollebeek@digicert.com</a>><br><b>Cc:</b> Kirk Hall <<a href="mailto:Kirk.Hall@entrustdatacard.com">Kirk.Hall@entrustdatacard.com</a>>; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org">public@cabforum.org</a>><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [EXTERNAL]Re: [cabfpub] Voting Begins: Ballot 221: Two-Factor Authentication and Password Improvements<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 5:21 AM Tim Hollebeek <<a href="mailto:tim.hollebeek@digicert.com">tim.hollebeek@digicert.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>People fought pretty hard for the ability to post ballots without redlines; this isn’t the first by far. I actually opposed that and lost.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal>><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>I looked at the last handful of ballots. All of them (224, 223, 220, 219, and 218) included redlines.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>I strongly encourage attachment of redlines, and this is the first time I haven’t, unfortunately due to time constraints. I try to do it whenever possible.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal>><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>It's more than encouraged - the bylaws require redlines.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>I believe if you look at the definitions, a Draft Guideline Ballot is the ballot posted by the chair after voting ends as part of the IPR process. That’s my recollection.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal>><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>The bylaws contain no definition of "Draft Guideline Ballot". Bylaws section 2.3 begins by stating "The following rules will apply to all ballots, including Draft Guideline Ballots...", so I think you are mistaken.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>-Tim<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><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 style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><b>From:</b> Kirk Hall [mailto:<a href="mailto:Kirk.Hall@entrustdatacard.com" target="_blank">Kirk.Hall@entrustdatacard.com</a>] <br><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, May 22, 2018 7:40 PM<br><b>To:</b> Wayne Thayer <<a href="mailto:wthayer@mozilla.com" target="_blank">wthayer@mozilla.com</a>>; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org" target="_blank">public@cabforum.org</a>>; Tim Hollebeek <<a href="mailto:tim.hollebeek@digicert.com" target="_blank">tim.hollebeek@digicert.com</a>><br><b>Subject:</b> RE: [EXTERNAL]Re: [cabfpub] Voting Begins: Ballot 221: Two-Factor Authentication and Password Improvements<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Bylaw 2.4(a) says the following: “***If the Draft Guideline Ballot is proposing a Final Maintenance Guideline, <u>such ballot will include a redline or comparison</u> showing the set of changes from the Final Guideline section(s) intended to become a Final Maintenance Guideline, and need not include a copy of the full set of guidelines. Such redline or comparison shall be made against the Final Guideline section(s) as they exist at the time a ballot is proposed, and need not take into consideration other ballots that may be proposed subsequently, except as provided in Section 2.4(j) below.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>I’m inclined to agree with Wayne, and it’s certainly hard to evaluate the ballot language without pulling out a copy of the NetSec Requirements first to see the context and what was changed.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Tim, Dimitris, and Neal – what do you think? Is the form of Ballot 221 compliant with the Bylaws? Do you want to ditch this ballot (we don’t have a quorum yet) and start again, including a red-line or comparison showing the changes from the current NetSec Requirements?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></body></html>