<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/2/2019 6:34 μ.μ., Ryan Sleevi
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CACvaWvaiUFX4vBXccQ3PfLGiO_uvDg2J9c-qrLArJnxirr_Nzg@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 3:19
AM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) via Public <<a
href="mailto:public@cabforum.org" moz-do-not-send="true">public@cabforum.org</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"> <br>
I made the following updates in addition to Wayne's:<br>
<ul>
<li>Added a process for Interested Party application to
CWGs as it seemed to be missing from the Bylaws. The
only reference we currently have is on the web site (<a
class="gmail-m_-4808100141065309621moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://cabforum.org/email-lists/"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://cabforum.org/email-lists/</a>).</li>
<li>For the Server Certificate Working Group membership
criteria, I tried to align with section 8.4 of the
BRs.<br>
</li>
</ul>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<div>I'm hoping this is unintentional, but this is not a
good change. This has been discussed repeatedly in the
Forum, and moving to a more restrictive policy for
membership in the charter has been regularly rejected.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I don't recall Members being against it for membership criteria,
because it was discussed in the past without objections. This was
for consistency with ETSI because ETSI EN 319 411-1 includes the
baseline requirements and network security guidelines where WebTrust
for CAs does not. This change better aligns the two schemes and was
discussed in <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://cabforum.org/2018/05/16/ballot-223-update-br-section-8-4-for-caaudit-criteria/">ballot
223</a>. Do other Members have similar concerns with this issue? I
would appreciate it if others can also state their objection and
concerns with this change.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CACvaWvaiUFX4vBXccQ3PfLGiO_uvDg2J9c-qrLArJnxirr_Nzg@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>My hope is that, as proposer of those changes on the doc,
you can go through and reject them or update them to ensure
that our current approach for the SCWG remains as is.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Can you explain why there should be a difference between the
Baseline Requirements section 8.4 and the server certificate working
group membership criteria? Since these are accepted in the BRs, it
makes sense to me to also be updated in the Membership criteria for
the Server Certificate Working Group.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CACvaWvaiUFX4vBXccQ3PfLGiO_uvDg2J9c-qrLArJnxirr_Nzg@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<ul>
<li>On the last call, we also agreed to add sample
Membership criteria to the new Working Group Charter
section. I added a simplified version of criteria
based on section 8.4 of the BRs, including Government
internal audit schemes that might also be acceptable
for the S/MIME Working Group.</li>
</ul>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>The problem with lifting this text, as is, is that it
relies on definitions from the BRs not present within
charters. For example, the interchangability of "Government
CA" / "Government Certificate Issuer" are in no way defined.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
The same applies to Qualified Auditor but it has not been a problem.
Would you like to propose an improvement that addresses this issue?
Would the use of "Government CA" be clearer for people to understand
what we mean? I left it because it could be useful for the S/MIME
charter discussion. It certainly looks better to me than the current
language that only accepts ETSI and WebTrust.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CACvaWvaiUFX4vBXccQ3PfLGiO_uvDg2J9c-qrLArJnxirr_Nzg@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<ul>
<li>Following the example of moving the membership
criteria to the CWG Charters, I moved the "end
membership" section to the Server Certificate Working
Group Charter AND the template for new WG Charters. I
believe that there was agreement that each Working
Group should determine their own rules for ending
Working Group membership, similar to determining the
criteria for joining a working group.</li>
</ul>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>Similarly, the prospects of ending membership are not
well-aligned with a generic charter. <br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
It's a proposed language, members that draft charters can use this
particular template language or not. The same applies for Membership
criteria. Improvements are always welcome.<br>
<br>
Dimitris.<br>
</body>
</html>