[cabfpub] [Servercert-wg] [Ext] Voting Begins: SC13 version 5: CAA Contact Property and Associated E-mail Validation Methods

[Ryan Sleevi]

On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 9:12 AM Doug Beattie via Servercert-wg <
servercert-wg at cabforum.org> wrote:

> Rob,
>
> Is there any reason we can't submit this to the IESG now saying "we're
> planning to add a property that we think meets the requirements, and as
> soon
> as you assign an expert reviewer we will submit this to the registry"?
> It's
> unfortunate this question wasn't raised earlier,


To be fair to Rob, this issue has been raised in the past. This was
discussed in the Validation WG as far back as London [1][2] as to the order
of operations. In that plan, Tim stated his intent to do exactly what Rob
suggested, and what the process would have been - to either publish an I-D
in the IETF or as an appendix in the BRs, to discuss with IANA for Expert
Review, and then adopt as permissible within the BRs. This ballot combines
those first and third steps and skips the second.

This omission seemed deliberate and intentional, as captured in the past
discussion [3], but perhaps there was some confusion in those statements.
To be clear, though, the ordering requirement that Rob's highlighting here
did continue to come up [4], as well as commitments to engage the IANA
process.

[1]
https://cabforum.org/2018/06/06/minutes-for-ca-browser-forum-f2f-meeting-44-london-6-7-june-2018/
[2] https://cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/2018-June/000915.html
[3] https://cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/2018-July/000960.html with
the counter-point and concerns at
https://cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/2018-July/000962.html
[4] https://cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/2018-August/000990.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20181221/55f71f69/attachment-0003.html>