[cabfpub] [Servercert-wg] Ballot FORUM-4 v2
Dimitris Zacharopoulos
jimmy at it.auth.gr
Mon Sep 17 01:08:27 MST 2018
On 17/9/2018 10:39 πμ, InigoBarreira wrote:
> Dimitris, I´m Ok and you have now 2 endorsers, but why still the "or"?
> There´s no options.
It's "Webtrust or...."
Dimitris.
>
> Regards
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *De:* Mads Egil Henriksveen [Mads.Henriksveen at buypass.no]
> *Enviado:* lunes, 17 de septiembre de 2018 7:00
> *Para:* Moudrick M. Dadashov; CA/B Forum Server Certificate WG Public
> Discussion List; Dimitris Zacharopoulos; CA/Browser Forum Public
> Discussion List; InigoBarreira
> *Asunto:* RE: [Servercert-wg] [cabfpub] Ballot FORUM-4 v2
>
> I will endorse.
>
> Regards
>
> Mads
>
> *From:*Servercert-wg <servercert-wg-bounces at cabforum.org> *On Behalf
> Of *Moudrick M. Dadashov via Servercert-wg
> *Sent:* mandag 17. september 2018 01:05
> *To:* Dimitris Zacharopoulos <jimmy at it.auth.gr>; CA/Browser Forum
> Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>; InigoBarreira
> <v-inigo at 360.cn>; CA/B Forum Server Certificate WG Public Discussion
> List <servercert-wg at cabforum.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Servercert-wg] [cabfpub] Ballot FORUM-4 v2
>
> This is your first endorser.
>
> Thanks,
> M.D.
>
> On 9/16/2018 9:06 PM, Dimitris Zacharopoulos via Public wrote:
>
> Hi Inigo,
>
> Tim has withdrawn the changes to ETSI because his main goal is to
> just fix the Bylaws with the language of Ballot 206. The risk of
> CAs using the old TS standards is already very high and we should
> not wait any longer to fix this. I'd be happy to propose a new
> ballot to fix the ETSI language for the Bylaws and the SCWG charter.
>
> I will propose replacing:
>
> "or ETSI TS 102042, ETSI 101456, or ETSI EN 319 411-1"
>
> with "or ETSI EN 319 411-1".
>
> That's the only change I am currently willing to propose/endorse.
> Looking for two endorsers.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Dimitris.
>
>
> On 14/9/2018 10:06 πμ, InigoBarreira via Servercert-wg wrote:
>
> Tim,
>
> I´d remove all mentions to ETSI TS documents (102 042 and 101
> 456) in all CABF documents. These TSs have not been updated
> for years, they don´t reflect the current requirements of the
> CABF.
>
> Regards
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *De:*Servercert-wg [servercert-wg-bounces at cabforum.org
> <mailto:servercert-wg-bounces at cabforum.org>] en nombre de Tim
> Hollebeek via Servercert-wg [servercert-wg at cabforum.org
> <mailto:servercert-wg at cabforum.org>]
> *Enviado:* jueves, 13 de septiembre de 2018 20:46
> *Para:* Tim Hollebeek; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion
> List; Ryan Sleevi; servercert-wg at cabforum.org
> <mailto:servercert-wg at cabforum.org>
> *Asunto:* Re: [Servercert-wg] Ballot FORUM-4 v2
>
> As discussed on the Validation WG call, this unfortunately is
> probably not going to be possible for this particular ballot.
> Ben did a lot of work to get the current redlined document to
> accurately reflect what the Bylaws were intended to be at this
> point.
>
> In the attached version 3, I’ve corrected a typo that was left
> behind after I reverted the ETSI changes. I would urge a few
> people to take a close look at it and make sure there are no
> additional errors …
>
> I’ll aim to update the ballot (again, sigh…) once I’ve heard
> from a few people that it looks good based on analysis that is
> independent of mine and Ben’s.
>
> -Tim
>
> *From:* Public <public-bounces at cabforum.org>
> <mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org> *On Behalf Of *Tim
> Hollebeek via Public
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 13, 2018 9:33 AM
> *To:* Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com>
> <mailto:sleevi at google.com>; servercert-wg at cabforum.org
> <mailto:servercert-wg at cabforum.org>
> *Cc:* CABFPub <public at cabforum.org> <mailto:public at cabforum.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [cabfpub] [Servercert-wg] Ballot FORUM-4 v2
>
> I’m highly sympathetic to that, especially with a document as
> important as the Bylaws. I’ve had the same concern as well as
> I look through Ben’s redline. After looking at it closer on
> the plane last night, I have some concerns about what appear
> to be some changes to cross-references that appear correct,
> but I’m not sure if they’re needed.
>
> I will also note that I have previously pointed out that
> according to the Bylaws, redlines are REQUIRED, but cannot be
> trusted in any way, shape, or form, as our Bylaws clearly
> state they are ignored for the purposed of updating the
> requirements. Yet everyone seems to want to review the
> redlines, not the ballot text. As I’ve pointed out several
> times, creating an additional representation of the changes
> that is required but cannot be trusted doesn’t help anyone.
>
> This is really, really silly, and I wish people were more
> vocal and active in finding a solution to it that works for
> everyone. And no, I don’t want to discuss what tools or
> processes should be used to produce redlines.
>
> Each ballot should have one and only one official
> representation of the proposed changes, and no alternative
> unofficial changes should be required. I’ve circulated
> several proposals, but I really don’t care about the details,
> as long as the problem is solved.
>
> In this case, I think I’m going to look and see if the Ballot
> Text from 216 applies cleanly to the latest Bylaws, and
> produce a redline based on that.
>
> -Tim
>
> *From:* Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com
> <mailto:sleevi at google.com>>
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 13, 2018 2:15 AM
> *To:* Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com
> <mailto:tim.hollebeek at digicert.com>>;
> servercert-wg at cabforum.org <mailto:servercert-wg at cabforum.org>
> *Cc:* CABFPub <public at cabforum.org <mailto:public at cabforum.org>>
> *Subject:* Re: [Servercert-wg] Ballot FORUM-4 v2
>
> Tim,
>
> I believe there had been a previous suggestion to provide this
> as a clearer redline, rather than an "Adopt Document X". Can
> you clarify that?
>
> By presenting it as you have, it's going to create more work
> to even make sure that the formatting of the document -
> claiming to be a redline - actually matches to the last
> canonical version, and that the changes you've highlighted in
> red, are, well the changes to be made.
>
> I hope you can understand why that's more difficult, because
> it requires wholesale comparison rather than taking the
> previous version and showing how it would be corrected.
>
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 9:20 PM Tim Hollebeek via
> Servercert-wg <servercert-wg at cabforum.org
> <mailto:servercert-wg at cabforum.org>> wrote:
>
> Ballot FORUM-4 v2: Fix mistakes made during passage of
> Governance Reform Ballot 206
>
> Purpose of Ballot
>
> The Governance Reform ballot (Ballot 206 under the old
> ballot numbering scheme) was extremely complicated and
> took roughly two years to draft.
>
> The changes to the Bylaws from Ballot 216 were intended to
> be included in the Governance Reform ballot, but were
> accidentally not included.
>
> The attached version of the Bylaws restores the important
> discussion period changes that were approved by the
> members but then accidentally overwritten.
>
> The following motion has been proposed by Tim Hollebeek of
> DigiCert and endorsed by Wayne Thayer of Mozilla and
> Moudrick Dadashov of SSC.
>
> --- MOTION BEGINS ---
>
> This ballot replaces the “Bylaws of the CA/Browser Forum”
> version 1.9 with version 2.0 of those Bylaws, attached to
> this ballot.
>
> --- MOTION ENDS ---
>
> The procedure for approval of this ballot is as follows:
>
> Discussion (7 days)
>
> Start Time: 2018-09-12, 9:30 pm Eastern Time
>
> End Time: 2018-09-19, 9:30 pm Eastern Time
>
> Vote for approval (7 days)
>
> Start Time: 2018-09-19, 9:30 pm Eastern Time
>
> End Time: 2018-09-26, 9:30 pm Eastern Time
>
> _______________________________________________
> Servercert-wg mailing list
> Servercert-wg at cabforum.org <mailto:Servercert-wg at cabforum.org>
> http://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/servercert-wg
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Servercert-wg mailing list
>
> Servercert-wg at cabforum.org <mailto:Servercert-wg at cabforum.org>
>
> http://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/servercert-wg
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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/20180917/8ff494d0/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Public
mailing list