[cabfpub] [cabfPAG] Function of the PAG
sleevi at google.com
Tue Jul 28 21:57:59 MST 2015
On Jul 28, 2015 9:41 PM, "kirk_hall at trendmicro.com" <
kirk_hall at trendmicro.com> wrote:
> Ryan, I suggest you start participating in the Validation Working Group.
We have already been discussing all the issues you discuss below – what it
the best way to formulate domain validation methods –
That is not the issue I discussed, and not the issues the PAG is
discussing. I'm sorry that there continues to be misunderstanding on these
> and it is not useful to switch the existing conversations back and forth
between the VWG and the PAG.
And no one is suggesting that they do, nor have they yet to switch. I
suspect it would be eminently helpful, and far less frustrating for you
[and likely me :)], if you wait to see if the minutes don't resolve your
You have repeatedly posed this as the PAG engaging in some activity you
disagree with, except it is not, and I don't know how to make that clearer,
other than hope that your review of the ample discussion will show your
concerns are unfounded and mistaken. And if you still have concerns, you
can at least know they haven't already been discussed at length, and are
worth bringing up.
> To be frank, I don’t understand what you are saying below. Are you
proposing that we move the current ballot on updating domain validation
methods from the VWG to the PAG? If so, why? The PAG’s purpose is to
examine BRs and EVGLs that are fully formulated against disclosed patents.
How is a draft proposal that has not yet been approved relevant to the PAG?
Again, I suggest you wait for the minutes, so that you can see if this was
not already answered in the conversation that was had. I appreciate that
there is still confusion on your part, but that seems the most likely to
result in clearer understanding.
> Again, this conversation has been going on for six months in the VWG, so
I suggest it return there, and I hope you will participate.
The PAG simply asked to be appraised of where the validation WG was, simply
as a secondary source of data, not strictly necessary for the prime
activity of the PAG. Phrases like "I suggest it return there" seems
unnecessarily combative and hostile, since it never left the VWG in the
first place, and your own reply to Ben's original email indicated you
lacked context for which to interpret it.
I doubt you would be raising these same concerns if Ben had just posted a
link in the PAG to an email in the VWG archive, but that really is all it
was, and hopefully that can assuage your unnecessary concerns.
I would again like to strongly encourage you that if you have questions as
to what went on in the call, or in the activities and scope of the PAG, you
just wait for the minutes. They're there to provide clarity for just
reasons such as this, and can enable a more productive and fruitful
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Public