[cabfcert_policy] Proposed Ballot - see email of 28-May-2015

[Dean Coclin]

Hi Ben,

That makes sense to me. At least it will get us moving and provoke more discussion in the forum.
Dean

 

From: policyreview-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:policyreview-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Ben Wilson
Sent: Monday, July 06, 2015 9:36 AM
To: policyreview at cabforum.org
Subject: [cabfcert_policy] Proposed Ballot - see email of 28-May-2015

 

Li-Chun Chen wrote me:

 

>I agree the view point of  formatting the Network Security Controls 

>according to the RFC 3647 similar to the BR. But I think it needs time to do so.

 

This raises the need for a point of clarification.  On 28-May-2015 I proposed a ballot to make a large number of minor changes to the Baseline Requirements, whereas the Working Group continues to make suggested content changes.  The Working Group has also postponed work on the major issues  until a second or third round of edits.  So, since we’ve nearly completed a second time through the document, shouldn’t we ballot the non-controversial changes (from our first time through) and get them in place?

 

In other words, the working document that I sent around on 2-July-2015 isn’t the same as the ballot that I circulated on 28-May-2015.  I propose updating that ballot with the non-controversial changes we’ve made since and going forward at this time with that, and then seeing what we have left.

 

Thanks,

 

Ben

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://cabforum.org/pipermail/policyreview/attachments/20150713/9371845b/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5747 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : https://cabforum.org/pipermail/policyreview/attachments/20150713/9371845b/attachment.bin