[cabfpub] Validation WG

[Jeremy Rowley]

Minutes will be provided within a week after the meeting going forward.

-----Original Message-----
From: Public [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Dean Coclin via 
Public
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2016 11:08 AM
To: Gervase Markham <gerv at mozilla.org>; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion 
List <public at cabforum.org>
Cc: Dean Coclin <Dean_Coclin at symantec.com>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Validation WG

I would say that "Validation" is an ongoing topic of continuing change and 
update. Instead of burdening the entire forum every time a change or 
improvement to validation takes place, this group is the appropriate "parking 
lot" for discussion/investigation.  They can then produce the "one or more 
documents offering options to the Forum for validation.." (taken from the 
ballot).

If you recall the history of this group started as the EV Working Group and 
focused originally on EV vetting methods. But as we came across non-EV 
situations, the Forum decided to expand the scope of the original group and 
become a "catch all" for anything validation related. Hence it is difficult to 
put a specific deliverable given this scope.

Dean

-----Original Message-----
From: Gervase Markham [mailto:gerv at mozilla.org]
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2016 10:38 AM
To: Dean Coclin <Dean_Coclin at symantec.com>; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion 
List <public at cabforum.org>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Validation WG

On 07/11/16 17:38, Dean Coclin wrote:
> In my opinion, this working group was properly chartered in Ballot
> 143 (which I note Mozilla voted YES).  The working group was never
> formally terminated but rather was put in a "dormant" status since the
> production of ballot 169. I think working group members needed a break
> after 1.5 years of work. Restarting the work of this group shouldn't
> require a ballot unless the scope has changed.

That sounds fine to me under the circumstances. Although I would second Ryan's 
call for careful minuting - this is an area that we know has IPR mines buried 
in it.

> We haven't been putting in "end dates" for working groups rather,
> deliverables which more accurately reflect the mission of the group.

But as currently chartered, the Validation WG has no end date and no 
deliverable whose delivery would terminate the group, right?

Gerv
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4964 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20161110/8788e416/attachment-0001.p7s>