[cabfpub] Ballot 128 - Creation of the CP Review Working Group

[Rémi Pifaut]

OpenTrust votes YES.



Kind regards.



Remi.

From: Jeremy Rowley [ <mailto:jeremy.rowley at digicert.com>
mailto:jeremy.rowley at digicert.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 4:55 AM
To: 'CABFPub'
Subject: New working group



Hi everyone,



During the CAB Forum face-to-face meeting, we discussed creating a working
group to compare the NIST IR proposal and various with the existing CAB
Forum work product. The group will also continue our contemplation on
converting to a 3647 format to make future comparisons easier.



Many of the ideas encompassed in these other standards documents are great
ideas that could improve the BRs, EV Guidelines, or Network Security
Guidelines.  Although the Forum may not adopt the specific language
presented in these documents, we certainly can use the previous work
product as a starting point for discussion.  This group is tasked with
identifying those starting point and either bringing them to the main CAB
Forum or making recommended ballot proposals.



Most CPs, including the NIST IR, are formatted in a 3647 format.  The BRs
are a CP that lacks this format.  Having the CAB Forum use an
RFC-complaint format will increase the ease in comparing new and existing
guidelines with Forum work product.  The group will look at the 3647
conversion work already completed and decide whether the CAB Forum should
continue the project.



To accommodate these goals, we plan to create the new CP Review Working
Group.  I look forward to the discussions.



Ballot 128 – CP Review Working Group



Jeremy Rowley (DigiCert) made the following motion, endorsed by Dean
Coclin (Symantec) and Doug Beattie (GlobalSign).



---MOTION BEGINS---



The CAB Forum shall create a Working Group called the CP Review Working
Group.



Scope: The CP Review Working Group will (i) consider existing and proposed
standards, (ii) create a list of potential improvements based on the
considered standards that improve the existing CAB Forum work product,
(iii) evaluate the transition to a 3647 format based on the amount.



Deliverables: The Working Group will produce topics of discussion and
proposed ballots that improve the CA infrastructure based on existing
standards and documents.  The Working Group will also make a
recommendation on whether to finish the 3647 conversion. Of course, all
work product produced by the Working Group is non-binding on the forum
until officially adopted by ballot.




 MOTION ENDS 




The review period starts on Wednesday, June 25, 2014 and ends on July 2,
2014. Voting starts at 2200 UTC on Wednesday, July 2, 2014. The voting
period will close at 2200 UTC on Wednesday, July 9, 2014.



Votes must be cast by posting an on-list reply to this thread.



A vote in favor of the ballot must indicate a clear ‘yes’ in the response.

A vote against the ballot must indicate a clear ‘no’ in the response.

A vote to abstain must indicate a clear ‘abstain’ in the response.

Unclear responses will not be counted.



The latest vote received from any representative of a voting member before
the close of the voting period will be counted.



Voting members are listed here:  <http://www.cabforum.org/forum.html>
http://www.cabforum.org/forum.html



In order for the motion to be adopted, two thirds or more of the votes
cast by members in the CA category and more than one half of the votes
cast by members in the browser category must be in favor. Also, quorum is
currently six (6) members– at least six members must participate in the
ballot, either by voting in favor, voting against, or by abstaining for
the vote to be valid.



Thanks!



Jeremy



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20140707/fe9d661b/attachment.html