[cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: Ballot 190: Domain Validation
sleevi at google.com
Fri Apr 14 00:49:21 UTC 2017
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 7:53 PM, Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>
> Ryan, you weaken your case when you are patronizing to people. If you
> don’t want to respond to my question (why not include legislative Notes on
> transition rules to the BRs right where they apply, as is commonly done),
> that’s your right, but again you weaken your case.
If this was the ballot you were proposing, and I agreed with your goals, I
absolutely agree it would be useful to help you find the appropriate
language. Unfortunately, this is neither. Importantly for the discussion on
the list, it's not necessary to help you understand the issues, if other
people - such as Peter - clearly do. Importantly, if Jeremy understands
these issues, then it's sufficient. If you disagree with those changes,
which you have yet to address, and if your support for such changes was
necessary to adopt the ballot, then I agree, it'd be worthwhile to attempt
to explain to you again the nature of these issues.
I have tried a considerable number of ways to explain to you. It's clear
that, whether intentional or not, my explanations will not help you. Peter
clearly understands the set of concerns and issues, and so it's reasonable
to conclude at least some people find understanding on this issue, even if
you may not. That's sufficient to make progress, even if it may leave you
confused or unsatisfied. Given that your suggestions have, so far, been
unproductive, it doesn't seem worthwhile for you and I to continue
discussing this matter, other than to highlight to you, in your role as
Chair, the reminder that these are not legislative texts, but technical
specifications, and the need and importance of both precession and
capturing in the text.
> Yes, that will resolve ONE set of transition rules from ONE ballot – but
> what do we do when we have another ballot that amends the same section?
> And then another? (Gerv gave a good example of this possibility this
> morning relating to the .well-known validation rule as you recall). Do we
> keep adding transition rules and effective dates over and over again to the
> same section? That makes no sense, and is not generally how rule sets are
> amended and codified.
I'm sorry this does not make sense to you. It's especially unfortunate,
because as I pointed out, this is exactly what the Forum has done and
continued to do.
As I mentioned to you on the call, we remain opposed to the very concept of
reusing the validation status - rather than the validation data. This is in
the effort of security.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Public