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

[Ryan Sleevi]

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>
wrote:

> 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>
> wrote:
>
> Why do you think it’s detrimental to discussion – I don’t follow your
> logic?
>
>
>
> *From:* Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi at google.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, June 9, 2017 4:49 PM
> *To:* CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>
> *Cc:* Kirk Hall <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>
> 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/bc54744d/attachment-0003.html>