[cabfpub] Future changes in the WebPKI

[Jeremy Rowley]

Agreed – I’d love to know where the browsers are/see themselves going. It’ll help us prepare users for changes better.

 

From: Public [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Peter Bowen via Public
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2017 1:33 PM
To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>
Cc: Peter Bowen <pzb at amzn.com>
Subject: [cabfpub] Future changes in the WebPKI

 

 

On Feb 10, 2017, at 11:51 AM, Dean Coclin via Public <public at cabforum.org <mailto:public at cabforum.org> > wrote:

 

Building consensus in meetings is different than building consensus for a ballot. Discussions happen in meetings without concrete proposals, as was shown in the chart I posted earlier from the Zurich meeting. I can’t recall anyone coming out before this ballot seeking consensus for a 1 year validity effective in 4 months.  So yes, I do think that now that a formal proposal (ballot) has been issued, a serious attempt to build consensus should be undertaken. This will likely take more than 2 weeks of online back and forth. We have a F2F coming up in 40 days, giving folks time to reach out and get more input.  I do believe that everyone wants to improve security but as the scattering of input shows, this must be balanced with the user constituency needs which really haven’t been fully vetted for THIS particular proposal. 

 

 

My impression is that several different browsers (or ASSes if you want) have visions/roadmaps for what they want from contracted CAs long term.  I don’t think these have been clearly shared with the Forum, probably because it would disclose product roadmaps.  This is why I suggested the quasi-anonymous futures topic at the next F2F, but I would even like it better if they could just come straight out and say “our ideal state is X, help us get there”.

 

Thanks,

Peter

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20170210/2e549359/attachment-0003.html>
-------------- 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/20170210/2e549359/attachment-0001.p7s>