[cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: Voting Begins: Ballot 221: Two-Factor Authentication and Password Improvements

Wed May 23 11:00:43 MST 2018

I was trying to avoid issues we have had recently with redlines that don’t always faithfully reflect the ballot text, which is normative.  I think you might be right and that the objection was to having to READ redlines, and not having to be able to WRITE redlines.

If you’re right, we currently require redlines, but they cannot be relied upon.  This seems odd to me, but our bylaws have had worse oddities.

-Tim

From: Wayne Thayer [mailto:wthayer at mozilla.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2018 12:48 PM
To: Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com>
Cc: Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL]Re: [cabfpub] Voting Begins: Ballot 221: Two-Factor Authentication and Password Improvements

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 5:21 AM Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com <mailto:tim.hollebeek at digicert.com> > wrote:

People fought pretty hard for the ability to post ballots without redlines; this isn’t the first by far.  I actually opposed that and lost.

> 

I looked at the last handful of ballots. All of them (224, 223, 220, 219, and 218) included redlines.

> 

I strongly encourage attachment of redlines, and this is the first time I haven’t, unfortunately due to time constraints.  I try to do it whenever possible.

> 

It's more than encouraged - the bylaws require redlines.

> 

I believe if you look at the definitions, a Draft Guideline Ballot is the ballot posted by the chair after voting ends as part of the IPR process.  That’s my recollection.

> 

The bylaws contain no definition of "Draft Guideline Ballot". Bylaws section 2.3 begins by stating "The following rules will apply to all ballots, including Draft Guideline Ballots...", so I think you are mistaken.

> 

-Tim

From: Kirk Hall [mailto:Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com <mailto:Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com> ] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2018 7:40 PM
To: Wayne Thayer <wthayer at mozilla.com <mailto:wthayer at mozilla.com> >; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org <mailto:public at cabforum.org> >; Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com <mailto:tim.hollebeek at digicert.com> >
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]Re: [cabfpub] Voting Begins: Ballot 221: Two-Factor Authentication and Password Improvements

Bylaw 2.4(a) says the following: “***If the Draft Guideline Ballot is proposing a Final Maintenance Guideline, such ballot will include a redline or comparison showing the set of changes from the Final Guideline section(s) intended to become a Final Maintenance Guideline, and need not include a copy of the full set of guidelines.  Such redline or comparison shall be made against the Final Guideline section(s) as they exist at the time a ballot is proposed, and need not take into consideration other ballots that may be proposed subsequently, except as provided in Section 2.4(j) below.”

I’m inclined to agree with Wayne, and it’s certainly hard to evaluate the ballot language without pulling out a copy of the NetSec Requirements first to see the context and what was changed.

Tim, Dimitris, and Neal – what do you think?  Is the form of Ballot 221 compliant with the Bylaws?  Do you want to ditch this ballot (we don’t have a quorum yet) and start again, including a red-line or comparison showing the changes from the current NetSec Requirements?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20180523/9f54e81c/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4940 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20180523/9f54e81c/attachment-0001.p7s>