[cabfpub] Ballot 146 - Convert Baseline Requirements to RFC 3647 Framework

Ryan Sleevi sleevi at google.com
Thu Mar 19 21:20:58 MST 2015


Thanks Ben, Dean, and for everyone who has worked so hard in contributing
to this effort.

Seeing how hard it has been for CAs to meet the Baseline Requirements, and
how frequently they have still passed their audits with flying colors while
doing egregious violations, I'm profoundly appreciative of the work to make
the BRs (and EVGs) something that more people can crosscheck and review
against CA's CP/CPSes. My hope is that everything was able to be
successfully captured, and I appreciate the extra time to review and
provide further questions.
On Mar 19, 2015 9:01 PM, "Ben Wilson" <ben.wilson at digicert.com> wrote:

> I’m fine, too, with adding one additional week to the ballot review period
> and then extending it another week if needed.
>
>
>
> *From:* Dean Coclin [mailto:Dean_Coclin at symantec.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 19, 2015 6:58 PM
> *To:* Ryan Sleevi; Ben Wilson
> *Cc:* CABFPub
> *Subject:* RE: [cabfpub] Ballot 146 - Convert Baseline Requirements to
> RFC 3647 Framework
>
>
>
> I would be supportive of extending this. It sounds like the benefits were
> made evident in your recent review of CPS documents and we hope others will
> also feel the same.
>
>
>
> Dean
>
>
>
> *From:* public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org
> <public-bounces at cabforum.org>] *On Behalf Of *Ryan Sleevi
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 19, 2015 6:35 PM
> *To:* Ben Wilson
> *Cc:* CABFPub
> *Subject:* Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 146 - Convert Baseline Requirements to
> RFC 3647 Framework
>
>
>
> Thanks for continuing to push on this, Ben.
>
>
>
> From our point of view, this is a huge change. It's probably a good one
> (as discussed during the F2F, this could be tremendously helpful). But it's
> going to take a lot of careful review for us to cross-check the CP Review
> WG's work, in part because I can't seem to find public archives that might
> be able to answer questions.
>
>
>
> Because of this, I'm not sure if we'll be able to complete the review by
> the time the ballot closes. If that happens, we may decide to vote against
> it, simply on the "needs more time", even though, as discussed during the
> F2F, I think we'd be quite supportive of this effort (having reviewed
> several CA's CP/CPS this week, I certainly found myself using the draft as
> a helpful crib sheet).
>
>
>
> Since we haven't really looked closely at this until the discussions at
> the most recent F2F, would you and the cosponsors be willing to delay
> starting this ballot by a week (or two), and/or seek to extend the review
> period? This is probably the single largest change the Forum has ever
> proposed, and I want to make sure it gets the due attention it deserves,
> while also not delaying it indefinitely for "more review".
>
>
>
> Would that be something you would be OK with?
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20150319/3240c6b7/attachment.html 


More information about the Public mailing list