[cabfpub] Ballot SC9 – Conversion of Validation and NetSec Working Groups to SCWG Subcommittees

Fri Sep 14 06:47:41 MST 2018

For the record, I’m in favor of making it explicitly clear that the scope remains the same.

If you’re making changes, feel free to also add Wayne as Validation WG Vice Chair, since he already runs the meetings for me when I’m traveling.

-Tim

From: Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com> 
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2018 6:22 PM
To: Wayne Thayer <wthayer at mozilla.com>
Cc: Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com>; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot SC9 – Conversion of Validation and NetSec Working Groups to SCWG Subcommittees

I’m taking your comment as saying you will vote in favor of the ballot if I make that specific change, so I’ll make that change.  Otherwise, on this ballot and Ballot SC10, I’m only going to consider comments and criticisms that propose specific alternate language.  We have spent two months on creation of Subcommittees that simply continue the work we have been doing., and getting nowhere.  Time to finish up!

From: Wayne Thayer [ <mailto:wthayer at mozilla.com> mailto:wthayer at mozilla.com] 
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2018 2:43 PM
To: Kirk Hall < <mailto:Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com> Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>
Cc: Tim Hollebeek < <mailto:tim.hollebeek at digicert.com> tim.hollebeek at digicert.com>; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List < <mailto:public at cabforum.org> public at cabforum.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL]Re: [cabfpub] Ballot SC9 – Conversion of Validation and NetSec Working Groups to SCWG Subcommittees

Kirk,

My concern is that the ballot doesn't explicitly state what you (and I agree) believe is intended here. Someone in the future can look back at the ballot language we passed with SC9 and interpret it differently. Simply copying the VWG scope (and deliverables) into the body of the motion would address this.

On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 2:33 PM Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com <mailto:Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com> > wrote:

Wayne – sorry, I didn’t see your message until now.

In my view, “converting” the Validation Working Group to the Validation Subcommittee under Bylaw 5.3.4 means it has the same scope as it had under Ballot 143, which established the Validation Working Group.  If the scope is repeated or changed to create the new Subcommittee, then it’s not really “converted” – it’s no different than simply creating a new Subcommittee under Bylaw 5.3.1(e) with a stated scope, etc. – right?

On your second point – sure, we can say that only “legacy” WGs of the Forum expire on Oct. 3 (as the *new* WGs like the SCWG clearly doesn’t expire).  I can make that change in the next draft.

From: Wayne Thayer [mailto: <mailto:wthayer at mozilla.com> wthayer at mozilla.com] 
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2018 11:35 AM
To: Tim Hollebeek < <mailto:tim.hollebeek at digicert.com> tim.hollebeek at digicert.com>; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List < <mailto:public at cabforum.org> public at cabforum.org>
Cc: Kirk Hall < <mailto:Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com> Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL]Re: [cabfpub] Ballot SC9 – Conversion of Validation and NetSec Working Groups to SCWG Subcommittees

This ballot doesn't appear to account for any of the scoping proposed or concerns raised in this thread: https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2018-July/013736.html

If the intent here is that conversion of an existing WG binds the new subcommittee to the original scope of the WG, then that should be explicitly stated in the ballot. As it stands, I think this ballot creates two Subcommittees that have no defined scope whatsoever.

Also a nit - the Purpose section begins with the statement that "All Working Groups of the Forum will expire on October 3, 2018." This should say all LEGACY Working Groups because the SCWG is not about to expire.

- Wayne

On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 6:07 PM Tim Hollebeek via Public <public at cabforum.org <mailto:public at cabforum.org> > wrote:

Thanks for taking the time to write this, Kirk.  I’ll endorse.

-Tim

From: Public <public-bounces at cabforum.org> On Behalf Of Kirk Hall via Public
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2018 6:52 PM
To: CABFPub <public at cabforum.org <mailto:public at cabforum.org> >
Subject: [cabfpub] Ballot SC9 – Conversion of Validation and NetSec Working Groups to SCWG Subcommittees

I am proposing the following ballot – are there two endorsers?  If we move soon on this, we can get this ballot approved before October 3, and there will be no lapse for these two Subcommittees.  

(Note: I considered also converting the Governance Change Working Group to a Subcommittee, but it doesn’t belong as a Subcommittee of the SCWG, and our Bylaws do not permit Subcommittees of the Forum itself.  Also, Dimitris and Ben seem not to want to convert the Policy Working Group to a Subcommittee of the SCWG, so I have not included that.)

Ballot SC9 – Conversion of Validation and NetSec Working Groups to SCWG Subcommittees

Purpose of Ballot: 

All Working Groups of the Forum will expire on October 3, 2018.  Bylaws Sections 5.3.1(e) and 5.3.4 allow any “Legacy” Working Groups (“LWG”) in existence when Bylaws v.1.9 was approved by the Forum to be converted to a Subcommittee of a Chartered Working Group pursuant to the procedures of Bylaws Section 5.3.1(e).  

The Server Certificate Working Group wishes to convert the existing Validation Working Group and Network Security Working Group of the Forum into Subcommittees of the Server Certificate Working Group.

--- MOTION BEGINS ---

In accordance with Bylaws 5.3.1(e) and 5.3.4, the Server Certificate Working Group (SCWG) hereby converts the following Legacy Working Groups of the CA/Browser Forum (CABF) to Subcommittees of the SCWG, effective upon approval of this ballot.  The current Chairs of the Legacy Working Groups shall become the initial Chairs of the SCWG Subcommittees.  There shall be no expiry date for either SCWG Subcommittee.

1. The Validation Working Group of the CABF is converted to the Validation Subcommittee of the SCWG.

2. The Network Security Working Group of the CABF is converted to the Network Security Subcommittee of the SCWG.

--- MOTION ENDS ---

The procedure for approval of this ballot is as follows:

Discussion (7 days)

Start Time: 2018-09-xx, 7:00 am Eastern Time

End Time: 2018-09-xx, 7:00 am Eastern Time

Vote for approval (7 days)

Start Time: 2018-09-xx, 7:00 am Eastern Time

End Time: 2018-09-xx, 7:00 am Eastern Time

***

Additional Information

Ballot 143 – Formalization of Validation Working Group (approved Feb 2015)

https://www.cabforum.org/wiki/143%20-%20Formalization%20of%20validation%20working%20group

The CA-Browser Forum formally establishes the Validation Working Group as an official working group of the CAB Forum, replacing the previous informal EV working group. The scope of this working group is to address issues arising under adopted CAB Forum standards related to the validation of certificate information and the inclusion of information in certificates.

Scope: The Validation Working Group will consider all matters relating to the validation and inclusion of information in certificates under adopted CAB Forum guidelines.

Deliverables: The Working Group shall produce one or more documents offering options to the Forum for validation within the scope defined above.

Ballot 203 – Formation of Network Security Working Group (approved June 2017)

https://www.cabforum.org/wiki/203%20-%20Formation%20of%20Network%20Security%20Working%20Group 

Scope

1. Consider options for revising, replacing or scrapping the Network Security Guidelines.

Deliverables

1. A report with one or more proposals for the future of the Network Security Guidelines.

2. For proposals involving replacement, details of the availability and applicability of the proposed alternative, and what modifications if any would be needed to it in order to make it suitable for use.

3. For proposals involving revision, details of the revisions that are deemed necessary and how the document will be kept current in the future.

4. For proposals involving scrapping, an explanation of why this is preferable to either of the other two options.

5. If there are multiple proposals, optionally a recommendation as to which one to pursue and an associated timeline.

6. A form of ballot or ballots to implement any recommendations.

Expiry

The Working Group shall expire once the deliverables have been completed, or on 2018-06-19, whichever happens first. The expiry date given above shall be automatically postponed by 1 year on 2018-05-19 ("postponement date") and each anniversary of the postponement date thereafter unless three or more members separately or jointly request on the Public Mail List, within one month prior to a particular postponement date, that expiry of this Working Group not be postponed in that instance.

Bylaws v1.9

5.3.1 Formation of Chartered Working Groups

(e) CWGs may establish any number of subcommittees within its own Working Group to address any of such CWG’s business (each, a “Subcommittee”). A CWG-created Subcommittee needs to be approved by the CWG itself according to the approval process set forth in the CWG charter, but approval of the Forum is not necessary. Subcommittees must exist under an approved CWG.

5.3.4 Legacy Working Groups

Any “Legacy” Working Groups (“LWG”) in existence when this Bylaws v.1.8 is approved by the Forum shall have the option of (a) converting to a Subcommittee under a CWG pursuant to Section 5.3.1(e), (b) immediately terminating, or (c) continuing in effect without change for 6 months following such approval. For an LWG to continue beyond such 6 months, it must have a charter approved as described in Section 5.3.1 above, as if it was a new Working Group.

_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
Public at cabforum.org <mailto:Public at cabforum.org> 
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20180914/a8b0ac90/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/20180914/a8b0ac90/attachment-0001.p7s>