[cabfpub] Ballot 185 - Next steps

[Gervase Markham]

On 23/02/17 18:39, Ryan Sleevi via Public wrote:
> I realize that some members suggested a phased approach. Unfortunately,
> I believe we have sufficient data at this point to know a phased
> approach either represents a much longer delay in providing meaningful
> improvements (as each phase needs transition time) or represents
> introducing significant more confusion and ambiguity.

I think that we should not abandon a phased approach so quickly. It's
possible that doing a phased approach might lead to getting to where we
want to be, quicker. It would require CA support, of course.

My assumption here is that they key date is the one when the last
"39-month" cert expires, and so all certs in existence are of the new,
shorter length. If we (unrealistically) made a change to 13 months
tomorrow, that would be 24th May 2020.

If we say "we will move straight to 13 months", then it might be a year
(say) before we could institute such a change. That would make the key
date 24th May 2021.

If we say "we will move to 27 months, then to 13 months", but because
the initial change is smaller, we can make the first move quicker, then
we could move to 27 months in six months time, then to 13 months a year
after that, and the key date becomes 24th November 2020 - 6 months
sooner than the other scenario.

So there is a possible benefit in a 2-phase approach - we get where we
want to be quicker. But if CAs feel that the complexity of having two
phases is more than it's worth, then the idea won't fly.

Gerv