[cabfpub] Ballot SC10 – Establishing the Network Security Subcommittee of the SCWG

Kirk Hall Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com
Thu Sep 13 22:24:01 UTC 2018

On this ballot and Ballot SC10, I’m only going to consider comments and criticisms that propose specific alternate language that you will support.  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!

Do you have specific alternate ballot language you want the Members to consider?  If so, please post.

From: Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi at google.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2018 2:55 PM
To: Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>; CABFPub <public at cabforum.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL]Re: [cabfpub] Ballot SC10 – Establishing the Network Security Subcommittee of the SCWG

On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 5:25 PM Kirk Hall via Public <public at cabforum.org<mailto:public at cabforum.org>> wrote:
Scope: Revising and improving the Network and Certificate Systems Security Requirements (NCSSRs).

Out of Scope: No provision.

Deliverables: The Network Security Subcommittee shall produce one or more documents offering options to the Forum for establishing minimal security standards within the scope defined above, which may be used to modify the existing NCSSRs. These renewed NCSSR documents will serve CAs, auditors and browsers in giving a state of the art set of rules for the deployment and operation of CAs computing infrastructures.  The Subcommittee may choose its own initial Chair.

Is this Deliverable correct? Is that scope correct? The previous WG produced (only after significant prodding) a statement about 'options' - which was to modifying the existing NCSSRs. It seems like we're talking now about concrete recommendations for changes, and it seems more relevant to note what is in scope or out of scope.

I disagree that the deliverable affirmatively stating "will serve CA, auditors, and browsers".

However, there's other, more fundamental problems. Most notable is that Subcommittees aren't established to have Chairs - the point of the rework of the Bylaws was to make it clearer what activities are done and how they fit, and a SCWG subcommittee is just that - a subgroup of the SCWG. The other is that the SCWG does not yet have a defined process for the establishment of subcommittees.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20180913/cc69ae91/attachment-0003.html>

More information about the Public mailing list