[cabfpub] Public Digest, Vol 77, Issue 81

Fri Sep 14 23:45:21 UTC 2018

Ryan, thank you clearly explaining why it is deeply concerning that a Google representative is opposed to the status quo.  We will continue to have minutes, unless a Google prevents it.

-Tim

From: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com> 
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2018 6:52 PM
To: Geoff Keating <geoffk at apple.com>
Cc: CABFPub <public at cabforum.org>; Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com>; Virginia Fournier <vfournier at apple.com>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Public Digest, Vol 77, Issue 81

You are correct that it's deeply concerning if there can be a Subcommittee that *doesn't* take minutes. A good ballot for such a subcommittee would affirm its commitment to running in such a way that reduces that risk, so that it's easy to support.

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 6:34 PM Geoff Keating <geoffk at apple.com <mailto:geoffk at apple.com> > wrote:

I think we’re in agreement as to the effect of not having minutes on the IPR policy.

I don’t believe anyone is proposing a subcommittee charter which *prevents* it from having minutes.  So, perhaps if you’re concerned that a subcommittee might not have the standard of minute-taking that you would like, you could offer to take minutes for that subcommittee?  My experience is that such an offer is usually received with gratitude!

On Sep 14, 2018, at 2:04 PM, Ryan Sleevi via Public <public at cabforum.org <mailto:public at cabforum.org> > wrote:

Please review section 8 of the IPR policy with your legal counsel, Tim, particularly around what constitutes a "Contribution"

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 4:52 PM Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com> wrote:

We have the protections in the IPR policy, because we have the IPR policy.  To be clear, the existence or absence of minutes does not in any way affect the IPR policy, and there’s no text in the Bylaws or IPR policy that suggests that it does.

-Tim

From: Public <public-bounces at cabforum.org <mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org> > On Behalf Of Ryan Sleevi via Public
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2018 4:41 PM
To: Virginia Fournier <vfournier at apple.com <mailto:vfournier at apple.com> >; CABFPub <public at cabforum.org <mailto:public at cabforum.org> >
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Public Digest, Vol 77, Issue 81

Virginia,

I do not understand how that position is at all consistent with our bylaws with respect to IP risk. If we have Subcommittees without the requirement to maintain or produce minutes, how could we possibly hope to have the IP protections afforded by our policy?

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 4:32 PM Virginia Fournier via Public <public at cabforum.org <mailto:public at cabforum.org> > wrote:

It would be great if the people who continually complain that the Bylaws don’t contain x, or took away y, would actively participate in the process to create new versions of the Bylaws.  The version of the Bylaws creating CWGs and their Subcommittees was developed over more than a year, with ample time for review, comment, revision, rinse and repeat.

The Bylaws say that "each CWG may establish any number of subcommittees within its own Working Group to address any of such CWG’s business.” However, there's nothing in the Bylaws that prohibits Subcommittees from having their own mailing lists, minutes, chairs, etc.  It looks like Subcommittees have the   flexibility to determine how to conduct their own business within the CWG.  

If a CWG wants a Subcommittee to do something specific (like keep minutes), they can specify that in the CWG charter.   

Best regards,

Virginia Fournier

Senior Standards Counsel

 Apple Inc.

☏ 669-227-9595

✉︎ vmf at apple.com <mailto:vmf at apple.com> 

On Sep 14, 2018, at 9:29 AM, public-request at cabforum.org <mailto:public-request at cabforum.org>  wrote:

Send Public mailing list submissions to
public at cabforum.org <mailto:public at cabforum.org> 

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
public-request at cabforum.org <mailto:public-request at cabforum.org> 

You can reach the person managing the list at
public-owner at cabforum.org <mailto:public-owner at cabforum.org> 

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Public digest..."

Today's Topics:

  1. Re: Ballot SC10 ? Establishing the Network Security
     Subcommittee of the SCWG (Ryan Sleevi)
  2. Re: Ballot SC10 ? Establishing the Network Security
     Subcommittee of the SCWG (Tim Hollebeek)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2018 12:19:24 -0400
From: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com <mailto:sleevi at google.com> >
To: Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com <mailto:tim.hollebeek at digicert.com> >
Cc: CABFPub <public at cabforum.org <mailto:public at cabforum.org> >
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot SC10 ? Establishing the Network Security
Subcommittee of the SCWG
Message-ID:
<CACvaWvboDx1ec0bVXRnx7Eik3tgB8efxeQv06J_qYZKt7Czpzg at mail.gmail.com <mailto:CACvaWvboDx1ec0bVXRnx7Eik3tgB8efxeQv06J_qYZKt7Czpzg at mail.gmail.com> >
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

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://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20180914/7203cd81/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2018 16:29:38 +0000
From: Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com <mailto:tim.hollebeek at digicert.com> >
To: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com <mailto:sleevi at google.com> >
Cc: CABFPub <public at cabforum.org <mailto:public at cabforum.org> >
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot SC10 ? Establishing the Network Security
Subcommittee of the SCWG
Message-ID:
<BN6PR14MB11066D38B44B3BF97D0857D883190 at BN6PR14MB1106.namprd14.prod.outlook.com <mailto:BN6PR14MB11066D38B44B3BF97D0857D883190 at BN6PR14MB1106.namprd14.prod.outlook.com> >

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

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 <mailto:sleevi at google.com> > 
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2018 12:19 PM
To: Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com <mailto:tim.hollebeek at digicert.com> >
Cc: Wayne Thayer <wthayer at mozilla.com <mailto:wthayer at mozilla.com> >; CABFPub <public at cabforum.org <mailto: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>  <mailto: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>  <mailto: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>  <mailto:sleevi at google.com <mailto:sleevi at google.com> > >; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org <mailto:public at cabforum.org>  <mailto: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>  <mailto: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>  <mailto: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>  <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>  <mailto:Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com <mailto:Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com> > >; CABFPub <public at cabforum.org <mailto:public at cabforum.org>  <mailto: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>  <mailto: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>  <mailto: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/20180914/fe5fea4f/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4940 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20180914/fe5fea4f/attachment.p7s>

------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
Public at cabforum.org <mailto:Public at cabforum.org> 
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public

------------------------------

End of Public Digest, Vol 77, Issue 81
**************************************

_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
Public at cabforum.org <mailto:Public at cabforum.org> 
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public

_______________________________________________
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/20180914/0f9b35e9/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/20180914/0f9b35e9/attachment-0003.p7s>