[cabfpub] CT discussion at CABF

[Ryan Sleevi]

On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Rick Andrews <Rick_Andrews at symantec.com>wrote:

>  Ben L,
>
> Ryan wrapped up by saying that until now, you’ve heard only vague
> uneasiness from some CAs (my interpretation of what Ryan said; I can’t
> remember his exact words). Did you hear more specifics during this meeting,
> or would you like us to gather comments and present them to you?
>
> -Rick
>
>

I think CAs have been quite clear they're uneasy, but have been vague in
what can be done to reduce that unease. That is, there are both technical
issues and timing issues. We'd certainly like to address any technical
issues we can, and we'd like to understand the timing issues to see what
can or should be done. This was certainly why we actively solicited
feedback several months ago by contacting every CA in their program to
gather such information.

We welcome all constructive feedback. Unquestionably, the canonically best
way to ensure that feedback is recognized and considered is by ensuring to
send it to us (where "us" is myself and Ben Laurie, as you have with this
email). That said, we're also happy to discuss and better understand the
concerns within public forums such as the IETF -
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/ - or in visible forums such as the CA/B
Forum.

I have no doubt that the most spirited, robust, and meaningful discussions
of the technical problems can be dealt with within the IETF Working Group.
For the timing problems, that's ultimately something based on the Google
Chrome policy, so we're happy to discuss those directly or publicly, at
your discretion - since ultimately, no one can help you with your timing
issues.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20140220/fe6b183a/attachment-0003.html>