[cabfpub] Reposts/Forwards to the Public List (Was: Re: FW: FW: downgrade DV UI RE: OIDs for DV and OV)

Dean Coclin Dean_Coclin at symantec.com
Mon Nov 10 20:17:55 UTC 2014

Thanks for bringing that up. The thought crossed my mind before I re-posted this and the message from Matt but I recalled (as you did) what used to happen with Entrust. For those unfamiliar, Entrust (who at the time were not CA/B members) would post to: questions at cabforum.org and I believe a member would reply to the public list with Entrust’s comments below it. So that message was effectively “re-posted” to the public list.


Now, I didn’t realize (or take into account) any IPR issues. If this is an issue, then I won’t re-post any messages. But the public can still post to questions at cabforum.org.




From: Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi at google.com] 
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 3:07 PM
To: Dean Coclin
Cc: public at cabforum.org
Subject: Reposts/Forwards to the Public List (Was: Re: [cabfpub] FW: FW: downgrade DV UI RE: OIDs for DV and OV)


Hi Dean,


As a question regarding our bylaws, we setup the public list to be write-only due to concerns about the IPR policy ( https://cabforum.org/ipr-policy/)


However, as we've done so, we've seen a varying degrees of participation coming in through either our questions@ list (as Entrust used to do) or through members reposting on behalf of others (as was originally done for Entrust, and as you've done here). In both cases, the originator of the message is not required to agree to the IPR policy.


I'm not sure that reposting to the public list is appropriate here. For example, what if John has some IPR regarding the presentation of certificates? We don't know, and his contributions - like Entrust's - are not bound by the IPR policy, and AIUI, your reposting also can't bind their IPR to the policy.


Understandably, we'd love to see full public participation in the discussions, which we advocated for throughout the IPR discussions. But now that the Forum has set our policies, should we adhere to them, as onerous and unfortunate as we (Google) find them.


On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 11:57 AM, Dean Coclin <Dean_Coclin at symantec.com> wrote:

Re-posting to the list by permission of the author...

-----Original Message-----
From: John Nagle [mailto:nagle at sitetruth.com]
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2014 12:07 AM
To: Dean Coclin
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] FW: downgrade DV UI RE: OIDs for DV and OV

    The significant benefit of an EV certificate is a stronger financial
guarantee made by the CA to the relying party.  Here are Symantec's


Table 9 - Class Liability Caps
Class 1 One Hundred U.S. Dollars ($ 100.00 US) Class 2 Five Thousand U.S.
Dollars ($ 5,000.00 US) Class 3 One Hundred Thousand U.S. Dollars ($
100,000.00 US)

These classes seem to correspond to DV, OV, and EV certs.
(Task for CA/Browser Forum - standardize that terminology).
That's the real difference between OV and EV.  OV should be considered the
minimum for submitting a credit card number.
That's the message to get across to the end user via the browser.

It's also a marketing point that the CA industry is not making.

                                John Nagle

(feel free to repost this to the list.)

On 11/05/2014 11:35 AM, Dean Coclin wrote:
> Reposting to the list (with permission of the author)...
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Matt Palmer [mailto:mpalmer at hezmatt.org]
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2014 4:17 PM
>> To: Dean Coclin
>> Subject: Re: downgrade DV UI RE: OIDs for DV and OV
>> [Replying privately, since I'm not privileged enough to post to the
>> list]
>> On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 06:07:17PM -0800, Dean Coclin wrote:
>>> More specifically, is DV a sufficient use case for the majority of
>>> Internet e-commerce?
>> No, it isn't.  However, Internet e-commerce is not the use case for
>> the majority of HTTPS traffic, let alone the majority of
>> communication on the Internet which would benefit from being
>> - Matt

Public mailing list
Public at cabforum.org


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20141110/d1a6e22a/attachment-0003.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 6130 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20141110/d1a6e22a/attachment-0001.p7s>

More information about the Public mailing list