[cabfpub] [cabf_governance] Draft Charter for Server Certificate Working Group
vfournier at apple.com
Mon Oct 30 22:29:12 UTC 2017
That should be fine.
Senior Standards Counsel
✉︎ vmf at apple.com
On Oct 29, 2017, at 2:05 PM, Dean Coclin via Govreform <govreform at cabforum.org> wrote:
This was taken directly from our current bylaws but I see your point and this gives us an opportunity to fix it.
Working group-can we make this change in our bylaw redlines?
From: Public [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Gervase Markham via Public
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2017 4:32 AM
To: Peter Bowen <pzb at amzn.com>; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>; Ben Wilson <ben.wilson at digicert.com>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Draft Charter for Server Certificate Working Group
On 25/10/17 15:26, Peter Bowen via Public wrote:
> Shouldn’t organizations that meet the Issuing CA or Root CA criteria
> that also produce a software product intended for use by the general
> public for browsing the Web securely have the option of whether to
> participate as a CA Class or Browser Class member? Otherwise I think
> we will be down to Mozilla and Opera as Browser Class members.
Yes. I think the group membership criteria should be written in the
form: "An organization elegible to participate in the X Class should be..."
and then have a note at the bottom: "No organization may participate in more than one Class."
Public mailing list
Public at cabforum.org
Govreform mailing list
Govreform at cabforum.org
More information about the Public