[cabfpub] [cabfman] Ballot [93] - Reasons for Revocation (BR issues 6, 8, 10, 21)

Benjamin T. Wilson ben at digicert.com
Sun Nov 4 18:03:51 UTC 2012

Let's start a new thread and task to review and improve document life cycle and ballot processes.


On Nov 4, 2012, at 11:47 AM, "kirk_hall at trendmicro.com" <kirk_hall at trendmicro.com> wrote:

Out of respect for Yngve, Trend Micro votes yes on Ballot 93.

However, on future ballots if there are significant changes made by the sponsors after the start of the 7 day review/7 day voting period, we will automatically vote "no" unless the final revised proposals (hopefully in a "track changes" mode from the previous proposal) is posted and the 7 day review/7 day voting period is started again.

Some of us have duties beyond monitoring the daily changes on this list serv, and have travel requirements as well.  In my case, Hurricane Sandy affected my return form a trip, and I don't like being told I have only a couple of days to review a revised proposal.

-----Original Message-----
From: Yngve N. Pettersen (Developer Opera Software ASA) [mailto:yngve at opera.com] 
Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2012 3:01 AM
To: ben at digicert.com; 'Mads Egil Henriksveen'; 'Rick Andrews'; Kirk Hall (RD-US)
Cc: 'CABFMAN'; public at cabforum.org
Subject: Re: [cabfman] [cabfpub] Ballot [93] - Reasons for Revocation (BR issues 6, 8, 10, 21)


Compared to the text that was originally posted, the only changes are to the new Appendix A (4) and an additional reference (original point E), replacement text below (aka redline), and clearing up that the rest of the changes take effect immediately (which was posted before the original voting period started). The rest of the ballot text is the same as before.

The fundamental problem this time, and with Ballot 92, is that the real "discussion period" started a week too late for both ballots.

In this ballot, the actual problematic part was very limited, specifically to the inclusion by reference of the entire NIST document. That could be resolved with the changes suggested below by Ben.

As the problem area was so, specific we decided to extend the ballot, allowing a couple of days discussion period past the 13 days already used, to update the text.

On Sat, 03 Nov 2012 05:54:19 +0100, kirk_hall at trendmicro.com <kirk_hall at trendmicro.com> wrote:

> Ben and Yngve -- it would have been much better if you had "withdrawn"  
> the previous Ballot 93, and started again with a reposted Ballot 93 
> showing changes from the prior ballot, allowing 7 more days to review 
> and 7 days to vote.
> I am so confused by what's in Ballot 93 that we will sit this one out 
> and not vote.
> In the future, all ballots that are amended should start again.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: management-bounces at cabforum.org 
> [mailto:management-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Ben Wilson
> Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2012 11:26 PM
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5275 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20121104/3bd348b0/attachment-0002.p7s>

More information about the Public mailing list