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

Wayne Thayer wthayer at mozilla.com
Thu Sep 13 22:56:11 UTC 2018


In my opinion it makes some sense to move forward with a conversion of the
Validation WG to a Subcommittee with the existing broad scope and no
expiration date.

On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 3:21 PM Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>
wrote:

> 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]
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 13, 2018 2:43 PM
> *To:* Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>
> *Cc:* Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com>; CA/Browser Forum Public
> Discussion List <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>
> 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:wthayer at mozilla.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 13, 2018 11:35 AM
> *To:* Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com>; CA/Browser Forum Public
> Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>
> *Cc:* Kirk Hall <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> 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>
> *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
> <https://clicktime.symantec.com/a/1/Nn3HCo1ed6_tK9Z1BR5oxUbqA2Ys76GaBJzLaRu_uCc=?d=G14XipYp51dRpHIPn-RhS0wEmGHpnuAkExJG0pDIRjEEeb1Xszrl48tjZ-jxNK6b2v0wtaYif-XdaZ_vNhTwPdg889CDYUCdAK7jwr1c31LHAXjT15GjQQjvuzoP1OVpRnc9kQBEx_0QHXFXBvRk_5VLG0Gsh7k-2e0ceq6OcU-Dz3Z8hdDhqf0n1XyoKs-0q-FwpomYxgRD8X2A262rSgOAC1TEv9OUBafT2c-7eTRJGdxjALL393ccLqhoCHL2yQhZULYgzcAXgdn5GAJTWIt2ZU786AkkdeXEKEYg24aSi5n5eKr9LQSEIsEVj9ufJLjI07_KzSzcXNOrZRXJt9DCjLWPZNtyRtpAHkBKV-5dOEYoF8dr6Y8W2tKx1TIIjYzuJzOWF8oYU-yxxi4Jfr-veSUiehv158ZABTcJLBfIVUxB1m3aWH41E9sO_fqCJ8nFZ7QB1C43FO2D9GzwYVcSG83-UK1iZcgHFEyFynxsyHsDUg%3D%3D&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cabforum.org%2Fwiki%2F143%2520-%2520Formalization%2520of%2520validation%2520working%2520group>
>
>
>
> 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
> <https://clicktime.symantec.com/a/1/Si2ZiH5l54nHfg2HTjEPqjhMmJGrf1z_cv7iWFk6Fgg=?d=G14XipYp51dRpHIPn-RhS0wEmGHpnuAkExJG0pDIRjEEeb1Xszrl48tjZ-jxNK6b2v0wtaYif-XdaZ_vNhTwPdg889CDYUCdAK7jwr1c31LHAXjT15GjQQjvuzoP1OVpRnc9kQBEx_0QHXFXBvRk_5VLG0Gsh7k-2e0ceq6OcU-Dz3Z8hdDhqf0n1XyoKs-0q-FwpomYxgRD8X2A262rSgOAC1TEv9OUBafT2c-7eTRJGdxjALL393ccLqhoCHL2yQhZULYgzcAXgdn5GAJTWIt2ZU786AkkdeXEKEYg24aSi5n5eKr9LQSEIsEVj9ufJLjI07_KzSzcXNOrZRXJt9DCjLWPZNtyRtpAHkBKV-5dOEYoF8dr6Y8W2tKx1TIIjYzuJzOWF8oYU-yxxi4Jfr-veSUiehv158ZABTcJLBfIVUxB1m3aWH41E9sO_fqCJ8nFZ7QB1C43FO2D9GzwYVcSG83-UK1iZcgHFEyFynxsyHsDUg%3D%3D&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cabforum.org%2Fwiki%2F203%2520-%2520Formation%2520of%2520Network%2520Security%2520Working%2520Group>
>
>
>
> 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
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20180913/58fae8de/attachment-0003.html>


More information about the Public mailing list