[cabfpub] CAA working group description
sleevi at google.com
Thu Oct 5 10:51:55 MST 2017
I agree with both Phillip and Jacob here. I think LAMPS is a great venue
for working out the technical issues of discussion - and identifying where
policy flexibility is needed or the challenges - and then bringing that as
maybe one or two more ballots into the Forum. I think the technical
clarifications and edge cases that we've seen discussed are totally within
the realm of IETF's goals of interoperability, so we should try to use that
as much as possible :)
The extent of Forum ballots seems like it may be adopting one or two more
technical erratum (if interoperability issues arise and raised in IETF),
and then potentially exploring adopting the newer version being proposed in
LAMPS once completed.
On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 10:40 AM, Jacob Hoffman-Andrews via Public <
public at cabforum.org> wrote:
> With respect, I would suggest that there is already a CAA working group:
> the IETF LAMPS WG at https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/lamps/charter/. It
> has the advantage of being open for anyone to join and post, so CAs can
> more easily have conversations with Subscribers and Relying Parties. If
> half of the CAA conversation happens in LAMPS and half happens here, it
> will be harder for Subscribers and Relying Parties to fully participate.
> I'd definitely encourage anyone in the CA/Browser Forum who is interested
> in CAA issues to join the LAMPS mailing list at
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm (confusingly, the mailing
> list is named SPASM, a holdover from an earlier name).
> I think it's likely there will be another ballot or two in the CA/Browser
> Forum clarifying some of the language we use to incorporate CAA, but I
> think the amount of work is not enough to justify splitting out a second
> working group.
> Public mailing list
> Public at cabforum.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Public