<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-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@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>My ballot that I didn’t get around to writing would have had something like:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>“The current Bylaws lack clarity and precision about the functioning of subcommittees. Until such a time as that is corrected, subcommittees created from LWGs shall operate in the same manner as pre-governance reform working groups.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Would that help?<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>P.S. I asked the Validation WG chair if the Validation Subcommittee would continue using the validation mailing list, and continue to produce agendas and minutes, and he said yes.<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> Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com> <br><b>Sent:</b> Friday, September 14, 2018 12:19 PM<br><b>To:</b> Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek@digicert.com><br><b>Cc:</b> Wayne Thayer <wthayer@mozilla.com>; CABFPub <public@cabforum.org><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [cabfpub] Ballot SC10 – Establishing the Network Security Subcommittee of the SCWG<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>Subcommittees don't have requirements for minutes or publicly-available notes.<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>That's the point. All this thinking about subcommittees working "just like" LWGs is not the case. All of that was lost from the Bylaws. A subcommittee can just be two people having a chat, at least as written in the Bylaws today.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>There's nothing stating subcommittees work with their own mailing lists, for example, in the way our old bylaws did. There's nothing establishing chairs or charters or deliverables. It's a one-off note.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>That's the point.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 12:13 PM 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-right:0in'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Collaborating outside of a subcommittee has a bunch of drawbacks, including a complete lack of public transparency and much weaker IPR protections.<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'>In my opinion, there’s already way, way too much going on in private that would be better handled in subcommittees where everyone can participate and there are publicly available notes.<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<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> Public <<a href="mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org" target="_blank">public-bounces@cabforum.org</a>> <b>On Behalf Of </b>Wayne Thayer via Public<br><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, September 13, 2018 7:11 PM<br><b>To:</b> Ryan Sleevi <<a href="mailto:sleevi@google.com" target="_blank">sleevi@google.com</a>>; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org" target="_blank">public@cabforum.org</a>><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [cabfpub] Ballot SC10 – Establishing the Network Security Subcommittee of the SCWG<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><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Would it be helpful to take a step back and propose an amendment to the Bylaws or SCWG charter that addresses Subcommittees in sufficient detail? I would be willing to work on that. Meanwhile, if the Network Security WG left some urgent work unfinished, nothing prevents SCWG members from collaborating outside of the Subcommittee structure.<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 3:49 PM Ryan Sleevi via Public <<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org" target="_blank">public@cabforum.org</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><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>I think that, without incorporating or responding to feedback, we will be opposed to this ballot. I agree that it's unfortunate we have gotten nowhere - but it's equally unfortunate to have spent two months without responding to any of the substance of the issues. It's great to see progress, but making small steps doesn't excuse leaving glaring issues. It's better to let these fall down than to support them with fundamental flaws.<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Concrete feedback is:<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Delete: "These renewed NCSSR documents will serve CAs, auditors and browsers in giving a state of the art set of rules for the deployment and operation of CAs computing infrastructures."<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Rationale: That presumes this output will be valid/valuable.<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></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Delete: "The Subcommittee may choose its own initial Chair."<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Rationale: Subcommittees don't have Chairs and votes. They're just meetings of the CWG with focus.<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></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Delete: "The Network Security Subcommittee shall produce one or more documents offering options to the Forum for establishing minimal security standards within the scope defined above, which may be used to modify the existing NCSSRs."<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Rationale: This is a pretty much a non-scope as worded, but worse, precludes some of the very activities you want to do. For example, reforming existing requirements doesn't establish minimums, so is out of scope.<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></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Obviously, that leaves you with nothing left. Hopefully there's something concrete you think should remain, and you can suggest improvements there.<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></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 6:24 PM Kirk Hall <<a href="mailto:Kirk.Hall@entrustdatacard.com" target="_blank">Kirk.Hall@entrustdatacard.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'><span style='color:#1F497D'>On this ballot and Ballot SC10, I’m only going to consider comments and criticisms that propose specific alternate language that you will support. We have spent two months on creation of Subcommittees that simply continue the work we have been doing., and getting nowhere. Time to finish up!</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'>Do you have specific alternate ballot language you want the Members to consider? If so, please post.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><b>From:</b> Ryan Sleevi [mailto:<a href="mailto:sleevi@google.com" target="_blank">sleevi@google.com</a>] <br><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, September 13, 2018 2:55 PM<br><b>To:</b> Kirk Hall <<a href="mailto:Kirk.Hall@entrustdatacard.com" target="_blank">Kirk.Hall@entrustdatacard.com</a>>; CABFPub <<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org" target="_blank">public@cabforum.org</a>><br><b>Subject:</b> [EXTERNAL]Re: [cabfpub] Ballot SC10 – Establishing the Network Security Subcommittee of the SCWG<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><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 5:25 PM Kirk Hall via Public <<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org" target="_blank">public@cabforum.org</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'><b>Scope: </b>Revising and improving the Network and Certificate Systems Security Requirements (NCSSRs). <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><br><b>Out of Scope: </b>No provision.<br><br><b>Deliverables: </b>The Network Security Subcommittee shall produce one or more documents offering options to the Forum for establishing minimal security standards within the scope defined above, which may be used to modify the existing NCSSRs. These renewed NCSSR documents will serve CAs, auditors and browsers in giving a state of the art set of rules for the deployment and operation of CAs computing infrastructures. The Subcommittee may choose its own initial Chair.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Is this Deliverable correct? Is that scope correct? The previous WG produced (only after significant prodding) a statement about 'options' - which was to modifying the existing NCSSRs. It seems like we're talking now about concrete recommendations for changes, and it seems more relevant to note what is in scope or out of scope.<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></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>I disagree that the deliverable affirmatively stating "will serve CA, auditors, and browsers".<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></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>However, there's other, more fundamental problems. Most notable is that Subcommittees aren't established to have Chairs - the point of the rework of the Bylaws was to make it clearer what activities are done and how they fit, and a SCWG subcommittee is just that - a subgroup of the SCWG. The other is that the SCWG does not yet have a defined process for the establishment of subcommittees.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>_______________________________________________<br>Public mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Public@cabforum.org" target="_blank">Public@cabforum.org</a><br><a href="https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public" target="_blank">https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public</a><o:p></o:p></p></blockquote></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></body></html>