[cabfpub] Ballot 170 - Amend Section 5.1 of Baseline Requirements

Ryan Sleevi sleevi at google.com
Wed Jun 15 16:06:23 UTC 2016

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 8:41 AM, Gervase Markham <gerv at mozilla.org> wrote:

> The further we get from stipulations about the issuance and management
> of certificates, the further we get from the core areas of expertise of
> the people who are involved in this forum, and the greater the
> likelihood that we will stipulate things which are either wrong now, or
> are wrong in two years and we don't notice.

I believe we already saw this happening during the most recent
face-to-face, with respect to the discussions about contractors repairing
the uninterruptable power supply, and how the definitions being proposed
would have set an unrealistic and unachievable standard.

> So I'd say that just because a CA should do _something_ doesn't mean it
> should be mandated that they do it in the BRs. Perhaps others in the
> group disagree, so I would welcome a debate on this. It would be good to
> have because otherwise the more maximalists among us are going to spend
> time preparing ballots that the more minimalists among us might vote
> against, which will lead to frustration all round. It would be good if
> we could get on the same page here.

Thanks for phrasing it this way, Gerv, as I think that really gets to the
core of it. I similarly share your concern, and your interpretation - which
is, as I understand it, leaning towards a minimalist approach.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20160615/7acc415d/attachment-0003.html>

More information about the Public mailing list