[cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: Draft Agenda for F2F Taipei Oct. 3-5 for review

[Kirk Hall]

No objection generally to this proposal, Gerv, but I don't know that the editing proposals will be fully developed by the time of the Validation WG's report to the main meeting next week.  And for the sake of efficiency, it may be better to have all the hard initial choices and drafting work happen in one place (the VWG meetings), not two.  Hence the reluctance to have a de facto second VWG meeting during the VWG report in the main meeting.

I'll leave it to Jeremy to design his VWG report to get the best early feedback from the main group on the ideas under consideration.

-----Original Message-----
From: Gervase Markham [mailto:gerv at mozilla.org] 
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 12:48 PM
To: Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>; Jeremy Rowley <jeremy.rowley at digicert.com>; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL]Re: [cabfpub] Draft Agenda for F2F Taipei Oct. 3-5 for review

On 28/09/17 20:32, Kirk Hall wrote:
> Jeremy, we spoke before and you suggested a fairly brief Validation 
> Working Group report at the plenary session - and I agree we don't 
> want to reproduce everything that happened in the WG again in the main 
> session.  But it might be worthwhile go provide a fairly detailed list 
> of the issues the Validation WG is working on during your update 
> report as there's lots of interest in this subject.

I suggest we should go further. I would like the Validation WG to come away from the face-to-face with a clear sense of how disputed each of their discrete proposals for improvement to domain validation is. Then, they can put the less disputed ones into one ballot which we can pass quickly, reaping good gains and avoiding lots of good stuff being held up by arguments over one piece. We can then also map out pathways towards agreement for the more difficult issues.

Doing this would require more than a report from the Validation WG, it would require them to present us with a list of possible improvements, and for each to be discussed and then perhaps straw-polled with a show of hands to give the sense of the room. This might take a while, but I think it's time well spent.

The fact that we have an entire WG for validation, one sub-sub-section of the BRs according to our numbering scheme, shows how important it is.
There is a long queue of potential changes and we should take this opportunity of meeting together face-to-face to shorten it significantly.

Gerv