[cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: Send us you list of current problems with the Network Security Guidelines

Kirk Hall Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com
Sun Jun 11 21:56:18 MST 2017


I would love to respond, but I can’t respond until I understand the underlying reasons for your objections.  What are they?

From: Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi at google.com]
Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2017 8:06 PM
To: Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>
Cc: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL]Re: [cabfpub] Send us you list of current problems with the Network Security Guidelines

Kirk,

This is not helpful or productive. Should I take your response to mean that you do not wish to engage with or answer the question, which was hopefully both simple and clear, which was simply trying to understand why, given the problems, you would propose anonymity? Understanding your reasoning, and the things you considered in proposing it, is entirely based in good faith, and I hope you can extend the same courtesies.

On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 5:32 PM, Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com<mailto:Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>> wrote:
Actually, Ryan – you go first.  Why did you object?

From: Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi at google.com<mailto:sleevi at google.com>]
Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2017 12:37 PM
To: Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com<mailto:Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>>
Cc: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org<mailto:public at cabforum.org>>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL]Re: [cabfpub] Send us you list of current problems with the Network Security Guidelines

Hi Kirk,

While I realize your reply was seeking for more clarification, I think it's important to note that you didn't actually engage with the question I asked. I'm hoping to ask again - could you go into detail why this would be beneficial for discussion?

Thanks

On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 12:54 AM, Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com<mailto:Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>> wrote:
Why do you think it’s detrimental to discussion – I don’t follow your logic?

From: Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi at google.com<mailto:sleevi at google.com>]
Sent: Friday, June 9, 2017 4:49 PM
To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org<mailto:public at cabforum.org>>
Cc: Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com<mailto:Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>>
Subject: [EXTERNAL]Re: [cabfpub] Send us you list of current problems with the Network Security Guidelines



On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 4:34 PM, Kirk Hall via Public <public at cabforum.org<mailto:public at cabforum.org>> wrote:
Bruce and I will combine all suggestions received and report anonymously to the whole group for a discussion in Berlin.

That seems pretty detrimental to discussion - that is, the anonymous aspect - unless we're talking about specific audit failures.

Could you go into detail why this would be beneficial for discussion?


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20170612/ad18233a/attachment.html>


More information about the Public mailing list