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

[Wayne Thayer]

On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 5:05 PM Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com> wrote:

> Why does a subcommittee need this?
>
> How can we answer that when we don't know what the heck a Subcommittee is?
I would characterize the problem as more than confusion, which implies that
there is a correct answer to these Subcommittee questions if only we looked
at the right section of the Bylaws or SCWG Charter.

To respond to Kirk's question about subjects that need to be better
defined, here is a start:
* Do Subcommittees have Chairs and if so how are they appointed?
* How are Subcommittees chartered? (are they chartered?)
* What are the required contents of a Subcommittee charter?
* How are Subcommittees operated?
* What information is public/private? Do they have their own mailing lists?
* How are Subcommittees dissolved?



> On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 8:01 PM Dean Coclin <dean.coclin at digicert.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Perhaps rather than “chairs”, they should be called “leaders”. These are
>> people that lead the discussion, create agendas, minutes, etc. It’s an
>> informal role, serving as a titular head only.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Public <public-bounces at cabforum.org> *On Behalf Of *Ryan Sleevi
>> via Public
>> *Sent:* Thursday, September 13, 2018 7:56 PM
>> *To:* Wayne Thayer <wthayer at mozilla.com>
>> *Cc:* CABFPub <public at cabforum.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: [cabfpub] Ballot SC10 – Establishing the Network Security
>> Subcommittee of the SCWG
>>
>>
>>
>> I think that's what the past suggestion was, and I think it's a good
>> suggestion.
>>
>>
>>
>> There's no process defined in the CWG for establishment, and I think
>> there's still some confusion among some members about how the new Bylaws
>> look - because we're not establishing CWGs (which have IP considerations),
>> but Subcommittees. We don't need chairs for Subcommittees, there's not a
>> voting process defined for Subcommittees, and it seems there's confusion on
>> Subcommittees relation to minutes and such.
>>
>>
>>
>> I think we say the option is these LWGs is to terminate (as LWGs), and
>> further discussions continue on within the SCWG to resolve - things like
>> ballots for the SCWG and Subcommittees.
>>
>>
>>
>> There's no urgency to convert to a subcommittee or continue as a CWG.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 7:11 PM Wayne Thayer <wthayer at mozilla.com> wrote:
>>
>> Would it be helpful to take a step back and propose an amendment to the
>> Bylaws or SCWG charter that addresses Subcommittees in sufficient detail? I
>> would be willing to work on that. Meanwhile, if the Network Security WG
>> left some urgent work unfinished, nothing prevents SCWG members from
>> collaborating outside of the Subcommittee structure.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 3:49 PM Ryan Sleevi via Public <
>> public at cabforum.org> wrote:
>>
>> I think that, without incorporating or responding to feedback, we will be
>> opposed to this ballot. I agree that it's unfortunate we have gotten
>> nowhere - but it's equally unfortunate to have spent two months without
>> responding to any of the substance of the issues. It's great to see
>> progress, but making small steps doesn't excuse leaving glaring issues.
>> It's better to let these fall down than to support them with fundamental
>> flaws.
>>
>>
>>
>> Concrete feedback is:
>>
>> Delete: "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."
>>
>> Rationale: That presumes this output will be valid/valuable.
>>
>>
>>
>> Delete: "The Subcommittee may choose its own initial Chair."
>>
>> Rationale: Subcommittees don't have Chairs and votes. They're just
>> meetings of the CWG with focus.
>>
>>
>>
>> Delete: "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."
>>
>> Rationale: This is a pretty much a non-scope as worded, but worse,
>> precludes some of the very activities you want to do. For example,
>> reforming existing requirements doesn't establish minimums, so is out of
>> scope.
>>
>>
>>
>> Obviously, that leaves you with nothing left. Hopefully there's something
>> concrete you think should remain, and you can suggest improvements there.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 6:24 PM Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> 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>
>> 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.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/fc1de772/attachment-0003.html>