<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;}
.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>I’m willing to drop the scope statement based on Thursday’s discussion and the addition of the paragraph I suggested to the introduction, which describes much of the same thing in a form that seems more acceptable to most. Clint and Wayne, are you ok with that?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>On the subject of redlines, //github_redline_guide is not normative, so I disagree that it is not a valid Ballot. But that’s not really important, because I’m more than happy to improve the ballot by fixing the link.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Assuming Clint and Wayne sign off, please merge the change, and I’ll update the ballot.<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> Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com> <br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, May 13, 2020 5:44 PM<br><b>To:</b> Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek@digicert.com>; CABforum1 <public@cabforum.org><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [cabfpub] Ballot FORUM-12: Creation of S/MIME Certificates Working Group<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><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 5:18 PM Tim Hollebeek via Public <<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org">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-right:0in'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Upon approval of the CAB Forum by ballot in accordance with section 5.3 of the Bylaws, the S/MIME Certificates Working Group (“SMWG”) is created to perform the activities as specified in the Charter, with the Charter as described here (<a href="https://github.com/cabforum/documents/pull/167/commits/2aa376c06b45146249d0cc6b8cc5d42d08ccb177" target="_blank">https://github.com/cabforum/documents/pull/167/commits/2aa376c06b45146249d0cc6b8cc5d42d08ccb177</a>).<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Just to be clear: This link doesn't match the link for a valid proposal, so I don't think this is a valid Ballot yet. <a href="https://wiki.cabforum.org/github_redline_guide">https://wiki.cabforum.org/github_redline_guide</a> is helpful, but any suggestions for improvements are welcome.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>The immutable link is <a href="https://github.com/cabforum/documents/compare/6e0b8e61590164eb2d686ddcf266b189f46fc636...2aa376c06b45146249d0cc6b8cc5d42d08ccb177">https://github.com/cabforum/documents/compare/6e0b8e61590164eb2d686ddcf266b189f46fc636...2aa376c06b45146249d0cc6b8cc5d42d08ccb177</a><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>The pull request is still <a href="https://github.com/cabforum/documents/pull/167">https://github.com/cabforum/documents/pull/167</a> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Again, our concern is that the statement that "non-publicly trusted S/MIME certificates are out of scope" accomplishes nothing valuable, and causes real harm. That is, either it fails to keep anything out of scope due to its definition, OR limits the discussion to being impossible to introduce any new requirements due to, by definition, anything not in the existing documents is out of scope. Neither of these scenarios are good, and the risk of harm outweighs any benefits. We remain committed to trying to work with you and understand your goals, to find language that better captures those goals without the problematic ambiguity and harm of what's being proposed.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></body></html>