[cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: Ballot 190: Domain Validation

Ryan Sleevi sleevi at google.com
Thu Apr 13 21:00:15 UTC 2017

On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 4:45 PM, Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>

> Your analysis below is not correct.   The “law” in the CA/Browser Forum is
> what is approved by the members in a Ballot (all of it – in Ballot 190,
> that includes both Section 1 and Section 2 – both sections have equal
> validity and applicability because both were adopted by the members at the
> same time.)

I'm sorry Kirk, but your analysis is not correct.

What suggestion of the documents are you suggesting Section 2 modifies? How
are you suggesting members audit it, if not part of the document? How are
you suggesting future Ballots reform it?

> In contrast, the BRs are just a compilation of those portions of prior
> adopted Ballots that have long-term applicability to members.  It’s a
> mistake to junk up the BRs with lots of effective dates and transition rule
> that will expire, and it’s unnecessary.  Again, the adopted ballots of the
> Forum are the “law” – all sections of the ballots equally – and not the BR
> compilations themselves.  I think Google’s Legal Department will agree.

Kirk, I will again emphasize to you the Baseline Requirements are not a
legal document. Your legal analysis is appreciated, but not relevant. These
are technical standards. They belong in the standards.

> We could put ballot transition rules in BRs themselves (for Ballot 190,
> move from Section 2 to Section 1 and make part of BR, but I would
> rather not – then the transition rules are no longer relevant (because they
> are time-based and will expire), they have to be pulled out again by a
> later ballot – not useful.  The transition rules will exist in Section 2 of
> the adopted Ballot 190 itself, and that is sufficient.

I strongly disagree here.

> Another option is to add transition rules like Ballot 190, Section 2 to
> the BRs as “Notes” to BR that are not part of BR, and that
> can later be removed by the BRs compiler without a further ballot once the
> transition rules are no longer relevant (because all validation data from
> before the effective date of Ballot 190 will have expired).  That’s what
> some legislatures do, and I wouldn’t object to that.

They are either normative parts of the technical standards or they are not.
If they want to have force, they are normative.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20170413/d76956d9/attachment-0003.html>

More information about the Public mailing list