[cabfpub] Ballots 154 and 155 - Convert to RFC 3647 Framework and GitHub

Ryan Sleevi sleevi at google.com
Tue Nov 3 23:22:39 UTC 2015


I thought it was noted at the F2F in Ankara that a ballot for conversion to
RFC 3647 wouldn't be necessary; the actual ballots would be for the
adoption of the work product produced. Same too goes for the format and
source of the 'canonical' location of the documents are.

We need a ballot for 3647 since it's necessarily a textual modification,
but that's at the time of adoption, not a ballot to direct to write a
version in 3647.

That said, there's no objective harm in these ballots, other than to suss
out if there may be objections when it comes time for adoption, so happy to
pre-vote a clear YES to indicate support. I'm just not sure if it's
necessary ;)

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 11:46 AM, Ben Wilson <ben.wilson at digicert.com> wrote:

> *Ballots 154 and 155 - Convert to RFC 3647 Framework* *and GitHub*
>
> The Certificate Policy Review Working Group was chartered by Ballot 128 to
> (i) consider existing and proposed standards, (ii) create a list of
> potential improvements based on the considered standards that improve the
> existing CAB Forum work product, (iii) evaluate the transition to a 3647
> format based on the amount of work involved.
>
> The CP Review WG has met and concluded that the best path forward for the
> Forum is to complete a conversion to the RFC 3647 framework for the EV
> Guidelines and the Network and Certificate System Security Requirements and
> to post them on GitHub as the canonical versions of those documents.
>
> Ben Wilson of DigiCert makes the following motions, and Dean Coclin from
> Symantec and Gerv Markham from Mozilla have endorsed them.
>
> *- - - - Motion for Ballot 154 - - - -*
>
> Be it resolved that the CA / Browser Forum directs the Certificate Policy
> Review Working Group to prepare a version of the EV Guidelines that moves
> existing content into the RFC 3647 format;
>
> Be it further resolved that the CA / Browser Forum also directs the
> Certificate Policy Review Working Group to post the RFC-3647-formatted EV
> Guidelines on GitHub to serve, upon formal adoption by the Forum in a
> future ballot, as the canonical version of the EV Guidelines.
>
> *- - - - Motion Ends - - - -*
>
> *- - - - Motion for Ballot 155 - - - -*
>
> Be it resolved that the CA / Browser Forum directs the Certificate Policy
> Review Working Group to prepare a version of the Network and Certificate
> System Security Requirements that moves existing content into the RFC 3647
> format;
>
> Be it further resolved that the CA / Browser Forum also directs the
> Certificate Policy Review Working Group to post the RFC-3647-formatted
> Network and Certificate System Security Requirements on GitHub to serve,
> upon formal adoption by the Forum in a future ballot, as the canonical
> version of the Network and Certificate System Security Requirements.
>
> *- - - - Motion Ends* *- - - -*
>
> The review period for these ballots shall commence at 2200 UTC on Tuesday,
> 3 November 2015 and will close at 2200 UTC on Tuesday, 10 November 2015.
> Unless the motion is withdrawn during the review period, the voting period
> will start immediately thereafter and will close at 2200 UTC on Tuesday, 17
> November 2015.
>
> Votes must be cast by posting an on-list reply to this thread. A vote in
> favor of each ballot must indicate a clear ‘yes’ in the response. A vote
> against each ballot 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 more than one half 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 by abstaining for the vote to be
> valid.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Public mailing list
> Public at cabforum.org
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20151103/ad5d46f0/attachment-0003.html>


More information about the Public mailing list