<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;}
.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>Thanks Ryan,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Your memory matches mine. Unfortunately it might take a little bit of time since the registry was never set up when RFC 6844 passed (I believe this was mentioned in passing in London). <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I’ll poke people in Prague if it isn’t resolved by then, but the wheels of IETF bureaucracy are slowly grinding forward now.<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> Servercert-wg <servercert-wg-bounces@cabforum.org> <b>On Behalf Of </b>Ryan Sleevi via Servercert-wg<br><b>Sent:</b> Friday, December 21, 2018 1:01 PM<br><b>To:</b> Doug Beattie <doug.beattie@globalsign.com>; CA/B Forum Server Certificate WG Public Discussion List <servercert-wg@cabforum.org><br><b>Cc:</b> CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public@cabforum.org><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Servercert-wg] [Ext] Voting Begins: SC13 version 5: CAA Contact Property and Associated E-mail Validation Methods<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 9:12 AM Doug Beattie via Servercert-wg <<a href="mailto:servercert-wg@cabforum.org">servercert-wg@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-right:0in'><p class=MsoNormal>Rob,<br><br>Is there any reason we can't submit this to the IESG now saying "we're<br>planning to add a property that we think meets the requirements, and as soon<br>as you assign an expert reviewer we will submit this to the registry"? It's<br>unfortunate this question wasn't raised earlier,<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>To be fair to Rob, this issue has been raised in the past. This was discussed in the Validation WG as far back as London [1][2] as to the order of operations. In that plan, Tim stated his intent to do exactly what Rob suggested, and what the process would have been - to either publish an I-D in the IETF or as an appendix in the BRs, to discuss with IANA for Expert Review, and then adopt as permissible within the BRs. This ballot combines those first and third steps and skips the second.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>This omission seemed deliberate and intentional, as captured in the past discussion [3], but perhaps there was some confusion in those statements. To be clear, though, the ordering requirement that Rob's highlighting here did continue to come up [4], as well as commitments to engage the IANA process.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>[1] <a href="https://cabforum.org/2018/06/06/minutes-for-ca-browser-forum-f2f-meeting-44-london-6-7-june-2018/">https://cabforum.org/2018/06/06/minutes-for-ca-browser-forum-f2f-meeting-44-london-6-7-june-2018/</a><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>[2] <a href="https://cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/2018-June/000915.html">https://cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/2018-June/000915.html</a><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>[3] <a href="https://cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/2018-July/000960.html">https://cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/2018-July/000960.html</a> with the counter-point and concerns at <a href="https://cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/2018-July/000962.html">https://cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/2018-July/000962.html</a><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>[4] <a href="https://cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/2018-August/000990.html">https://cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/2018-August/000990.html</a><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></body></html>