[cabfpub] Ballot 145 - Formalization of Validation Working Group

[Ryan Sleevi]

On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 8:56 AM, Jeremy Rowley <jeremy.rowley at digicert.com>
wrote:

>  *This is the ballot to formalize the validation working group and modify
> its scope to include validation and the inclusion of information in
> certificates.  I’m looking for two endorsers*
>
> *Ballot 145 – Formalization of Validation Working Group*
>
> *Reason*
>
> In order to address validation issues and inconsistencies in both the SSL
> Baseline Requirements and the EV Guidelines, the CAB Forum has held an
> informal working group previously referred to as the Extended Validation
> Working Group now known as the Validation Working Group, would like to
> modify its scope to include validation in the Baseline Requirements as well
> as the EV Guidelines.
>
> *— Motion begins — *
>
> The CA-Browser Forum formally establishes the Validation Working Group as
> an official working group of the CAB Forum, replacing the previous informal
> EV working group.  The scope of this working group is to address issues
> arising under adopted CAB Forum standards related to the validation of
> certificate information and the inclusion of information in certificates.
>
>
> *Scope:* The Validation Working Group will consider all matters relating
> to the validation and inclusion of information in certificates under
> adopted CAB Forum guidelines.
>
> *Deliverables:* The Working Group shall produce one or more documents
> offering options to the Forum for validation within the scope defined
> above.
>
> *-- Motion Ends -- *
>
> The review period for this ballot shall commence at 2200 UTC
> on             , and will close at 2200 UTC on                            .
> Unless the motion is withdrawn during the review period, the voting period
> will start immediately thereafter and will close at 2200 UTC
> on                         . Votes must be cast by posting an on-list reply
> to this thread.
>
> A vote in favor of the motion must indicate a clear 'yes' in the response.
> A vote against 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: https://cabforum.org/members/
>
> In order for the motion to be adopted, two thirds or more of the votes
> cast by members in the CA category and greater than 50% of the votes cast
> by members in the browser category must be in favor. Quorum is currently
> nine (9) members– at least nine members must participate in the ballot,
> either by voting in favor, voting against, or abstaining.
>
>
>
Jeremy,

I'm a bit unclear on what you see the deliverables of. Is it just a
menu-style document for the Forum to mix and match?

Also, could you provide a bit of clarification about the scope of the
activity of the WG? For example, would it be within your charter to look at
Code Signing? It would seem not, based on the description of documents
adopted under the Guidelines. Or do you see the WG attempting to define new
documents that extend/enhance the activities of the Forum?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20150129/9267170e/attachment-0003.html>