[cabfpub] Ballot 145 - Formalization of Validation Working Group
jeremy.rowley at digicert.com
Thu Jan 29 18:25:43 UTC 2015
It was to both limit and expand the scope. We wanted to cover BR validation and inclusion of cert extensions but limit the scope to only validation and cert contents. Previously, we were covering everything related to EV, including insurance, audits, etc.
From: Dean Coclin [mailto:Dean_Coclin at symantec.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 11:14 AM
To: Ryan Sleevi; Jeremy Rowley
Subject: RE: [cabfpub] Ballot 145 - Formalization of Validation Working Group
I’ll let Jeremy weigh in, but it was my understanding that the purpose of the name change was to include the requirements for BR SSL certs as part of the scope and not limit it to just EV. It was not intended to go beyond that.
From: public-bounces at cabforum.org<mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org> [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Ryan Sleevi
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 1:08 PM
To: Jeremy Rowley
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 145 - Formalization of Validation Working Group
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 8:56 AM, Jeremy Rowley <jeremy.rowley at digicert.com<mailto: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
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.
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...
More information about the Public