[cabfpub] Pre-Ballot 206 - Amendment to IPR Policy & Bylaws re Working Group Formation
tim.hollebeek at digicert.com
Mon Jan 22 11:16:16 MST 2018
> Yes. We definitely don't want multiple WGs covering server certificates.
> The existing WGs in that category need to either go away, or become
> subcommittees of the Server Certificate WG.
The problem is this isn't entirely true.
The Validation LWG probably should be a subcommittee of the Server
Certificate WG. Can it be less formal than it is today (e.g. no charter)?
Perhaps. Probably the same for the Policy LWG.
OTOH, the Network Security LWG is addressing issues that are more
likely to apply across multiple different WGs, since they are generic
issues about how to securely run a certificate authority. Whether the
certificates are for Web PKI or Email or Code Signing doesn't really
We have also discussed at previous F2Fs a "Baseline Baseline" WG
that would handle things like EKUs and general compliance issues with
RFC 5280. Those would also apply to multiple working groups.
I was originally of the opinion that we could probably work that all
out after governance reform, but now I'm very concerned about
Wayne's concern that such generally applicable working groups
might have trouble introducing their work product into other WGs
due to IPR issues.
That would be a very unfortunate result of the governance reform
effort if it turned out to be true.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 4940 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Public