[cabf_netsec] Ballot SC29 - delay voting period?

Neil Dunbar ndunbar at trustcorsystems.com
Mon Mar 16 05:48:30 MST 2020

I think the only ballots in the pipeline are to do with forum structures 
rather than guideline maintenance, therefore they have less impact on 
CA's audited behaviour (e.g. switching the BRs to a pandoc friendly 
markdown structure; establishing the S/MIME working group, etc). I 
_think_ that the only one in discussion which is a guideline maintenance 
ballot is SC29.

I would expect, to be honest, that there might be a slowdown in bringing 
ballots forward for discussion/voting, if only because the proposers and 
seconders might not be in the best position to respond to questions 
during the discussion period, while all companies address the business 
impact from the pandemic.

Now, all of that said, I too was of the impression that the lack of 
feedback to the amended ballot probably meant that the community was 
content with the text of the ballot, so was hoping for a swift up or 
down vote. But if Issuers and Consumers are engaged in urgent business 
it could simply mean that they haven't had a chance to bring it to their 
relevant policy authorities yet.

I'll wait and see if any of our colleagues express strong opinion on 
this, but will make a posting to SCWG before 17:00:00 UTC today, 
probably announcing a 1 week delay, out of consideration for the situation.



On 16/03/2020 12:03, David Kluge wrote:
> I was also hoping that this ballot could proceed to voting rather 
> soon. We have spent quite some time working on it. We submitted it 
> many weeks ago and we did not hear anything back after incorporating 
> the discussion feedback. I was taking this as a sign that potential 
> concerns are resolved now.
> But I agree that we should be considerate of the current situation. 
> Moving the vote for a week should be fine if it helps CAs in their 
> business continuity efforts. What is the situation with regards to 
> other CA/B Forum activities? Is the work on other ballots proceeding 
> or will it be halted as well?
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 11:12 AM Neil Dunbar via Netsec 
> <netsec at cabforum.org <mailto:netsec at cabforum.org>> wrote:
>     All,
>     I note that (on the main SCWG list) Dimitris has asked for a 1+ week
>     delay in voting on SC29. While I do wish to proceed to the voting
>     period
>     for this ballot ASAP, I am also sympathetic that a great many CAs are
>     deep into business continuity stress because of the coronavirus
>     situation, and maybe less able to consider the impacts of pending
>     ballots.
>     I had intended the voting to start today (2020-03-16 17:00:00
>     UTC), but
>     in the spirit of ensuring that the ballot gets proper
>     consideration, I
>     wondered if a week's delay (so voting to begin 2020-03-23) would be
>     acceptable to the group?
>     I would rather not push it any further, since we run the risk of the
>     ballot failing because of Bylaw 2.3 (c) - the 21 day rule.
>     Opinions? I know that we in the NetSec group have thrashed this
>     around a
>     lot and its time to resolve it - if the desire to just 'clear it from
>     the books' is dominant, we can push for the existing voting
>     period. But
>     I really don't want to push any voting window too far.
>     Cheers,
>     Neil
>     _______________________________________________
>     Netsec mailing list
>     Netsec at cabforum.org <mailto:Netsec at cabforum.org>
>     http://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/netsec
> -- 
> David Kluge| Technical Program Manager |kluge at google.com 
> <mailto:kluge at google.com> |+41 44 668 03 54 <tel:+41%2044%20668%2003%2054>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/netsec/attachments/20200316/1ce6a311/attachment.html>

More information about the Netsec mailing list