<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=us-ascii"><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:"Yu Gothic";
panose-1:2 11 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"\@Yu Gothic";
panose-1:2 11 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
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="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72" style='word-wrap:break-word'><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>Validation sub-committee meeting minutes for 2021-02-25<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Attendees:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Amanda Mendieta<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Andrea Holland<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Aneta Wojtczak<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Ben Wilson<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Bruce Morton<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Christy Berghoff<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Clint Wilson<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Corey Bonnell<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Daniela Hood<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Dean Coclin<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Dimitris<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Douglas Beattie<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Enrico Entschew<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Janet Hines<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Johnny Reading<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Michelle Coon<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Niko Carpenter<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Paul van Brouwershaven<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Rebecca Kelley<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Shelley Brewer<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Tim Hollebeek<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Wayne Thayer<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Tim read the Antitrust statement.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Tim: Agenda for today is next week's F2F discussion topics. He said that he will read the minutes for the group since the last F2F to produce a list of accomplishments.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Tim mentioned the Trello board and how it was decided to move items to Github issues in line with Infra WG. But we didn't get around to moving over. We can talk about the current content of Trello and next steps on moving items.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Tim mentioned 4 discussion topics:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>- Certificate profile work.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>- Talk about OU ballot. We need to get to conclusion sooner rather than later.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>- DV reuse periods.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>- HTTP validation and ADN. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Tim asked if it would be useful to review Trello board.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Wayne said we need to clean it up. Not sure if needed to do now; lots of things listed that aren't needed.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Tim recommended that people take a look at the Trello if anything is valuable; if so, add a Github issue.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Wayne said that is a good approach.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>https://trello.com/b/NuqJuIcZ/validation-working-group<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Dean said one hour of discussion for Validation is scheduled.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Tim said that may or may not be enough. Tim asked group how long we need.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Dimitris said there are 37 open issues on servercert WG Github. He's not sure if related to Validation, but it's possible they are.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Paul said we can decorate those issues with a Validation label.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Dimitris agreed and said netsec-wg is already doing it.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Paul said other option is to create a project and add them there.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Wayne said that's the plan, no project created yet though. Only exists for Infra WG.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Tim said he'd welcome assistance setting that up.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Dimitris said we might cause more confusion by adding stuff from Trello.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Tim said we need to iterate a bit on getting Github to where we want it.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Paul said we should create a project in Github and assign existing issues to this WG.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Tim said there's not a lot of issues; we should review and tag, should be quick process. Asked for volunteers.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Wayne volunteered to assist and will create the Github project. Wayne created the board during the call (https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/projects/2)<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Wayne asked if anyone plans to have discussion points for each of the agenda items.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Tim said OU has two approaches: Entrust ballot vs. blanket ban. Dimitris asked how many controversial topics we have; time is best spent discussing controversial topics.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Tim agreed and said best use of time is to determine next steps. He said that OU and HTTP validation are controversial; DV reuse less so. Just need to get the ballot across the finish line. Certificate profiles are less controversial but there are some controversial points.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Dimitris brought up the streetAddress RDN issue and how ETSI has guidance on the number of times an RDN may appear in a DN. Dimitris and Tim agreed that can be tackled as part of profile work.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Tim asked if anyone had anything new about OU. Paul said nothing new; waiting for input from AT&T. Dimitris said an improvement ballot is best; if it fails, we can discuss removal. Dimitris didn't completely agree with Ryan's points about the responsibility of the Legal Representative and that could be discussed. Paul agreed the discussion isn't closed and would participate in the discussion if it comes up.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Tim proposed 30 minutes and others agreed.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Tim said we haven't discussed HTTP validation/ADN much on the calls and proposed 30 minutes. Bruce asked what is controversial. Tim mentioned the disclose of validation data and how it is disclosed. Additionally, the rules on how it would work and transition timelines.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Wayne brought up Ben's validation reuse ballot has the validation reuse cliff and to a lesser extent, effective date issues. Bruce said there's a date in the ballot but the ballot is still not defined completely, which is concerning. Bruce said these ballots can be approved more quickly if there was an extended time to implement. Tim agreed and said that waiting to determine effective dates delays the effective date because you can't do customer communications, etc. until the date is determined.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Tim then asked the group how long we need for this discussion. Clint suggested that it would help the discussion up by stating it affects only validations performed after a certain date and proposed 15 minutes for discussion. Dimitris agreed on 15 minutes and said that the ballot is clear and people can challenge the current wording during that time. Dimitris mentioned that the discussion on effective dates of ballots in general would take at least another 15 minutes to just introduce the topic. Tim said he does not plan to discuss that issue next week. Bruce said that topic should be for the servercert WG as a whole to discuss. Tim said it's also a valid Forum-level topic.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Tim asked about certificate profiles. Bruce said it's just a lot of work, nothing much to discuss unless there's issues. Tim agreed there's not a lot of discussion to be had. Tim proposed 15 minutes for strategy and next steps.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Tim said we need to expand time slot to 1h30m.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Tim asked if there's any other business. There was none.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Meeting was adjourned.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Thanks,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Corey<o:p></o:p></p></div></body></html>