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

Fri Sep 14 16:29:38 UTC 2018

My ballot that I didn’t get around to writing would have had something like:

“The current Bylaws lack clarity and precision about the functioning of subcommittees.  Until such a time as that is corrected, subcommittees created from LWGs shall operate in the same manner as pre-governance reform working groups.”

Would that help?

-Tim

P.S. I asked the Validation WG chair if the Validation Subcommittee would continue using the validation mailing list, and continue to produce agendas and minutes, and he said yes.

From: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com> 
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2018 12:19 PM
To: Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com>
Cc: Wayne Thayer <wthayer at mozilla.com>; CABFPub <public at cabforum.org>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot SC10 – Establishing the Network Security Subcommittee of the SCWG

Subcommittees don't have requirements for minutes or publicly-available notes.

That's the point. All this thinking about subcommittees working "just like" LWGs is not the case. All of that was lost from the Bylaws. A subcommittee can just be two people having a chat, at least as written in the Bylaws today.

There's nothing stating subcommittees work with their own mailing lists, for example, in the way our old bylaws did. There's nothing establishing chairs or charters or deliverables. It's a one-off note.

That's the point.

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 12:13 PM Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com <mailto:tim.hollebeek at digicert.com> > wrote:

Collaborating outside of a subcommittee has a bunch of drawbacks, including a complete lack of public transparency and much weaker IPR protections.

In my opinion, there’s already way, way too much going on in private that would be better handled in subcommittees where everyone can participate and there are publicly available notes.

-Tim

From: Public <public-bounces at cabforum.org <mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org> > On Behalf Of Wayne Thayer via Public
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2018 7:11 PM
To: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com <mailto:sleevi at google.com> >; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org <mailto:public at cabforum.org> >
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot SC10 – Establishing the Network Security Subcommittee of the SCWG

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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:sleevi at google.com> ] 
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2018 2:55 PM
To: Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com <mailto:Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com> >; CABFPub <public at cabforum.org <mailto: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.

_______________________________________________
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://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20180914/fe5fea4f/attachment-0003.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4940 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20180914/fe5fea4f/attachment-0003.p7s>