[cabfpub] CAA working group description

[Jeremy Rowley]

I know there’s a CAA document going through ACME. Is this also going LAMPS?  The ACME WG is already working on account UIR and validation-methods parameters. Given that this represents two of the four parameters suggested during the F2F, should we add the other two there? 

 

From: Public [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Jacob Hoffman-Andrews via Public
Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2017 12:52 PM
To: Phillip <philliph at comodo.com>
Cc: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] CAA working group description

 

On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 11:09 AM, Phillip <philliph at comodo.com <mailto:philliph at comodo.com> > wrote:

What somewhat worries me is a situation in which I have ten CABForum members tell me that they really want X in a CABForum group and then I report that into the IETF WG and three people say they have other ideas and there being 3 of them and one of me, they represent the consensus.

 

I agree that this would be a bad outcome, and it's part of why we need to encourage interested CA/Browser Forum members to participate directly in IETF, so they can be heard as part of the consensus.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20171006/b98eada4/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4984 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20171006/b98eada4/attachment.p7s>