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

[Kirk Hall]

Actually, Ryan – you go first.  Why did you object?

From: Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi at google.com]
Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2017 12:37 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

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://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20170611/66851ae0/attachment-0003.html>