[cabfpub] [Servercert-wg] Ballot FORUM-4 v2

Moudrick M. Dadashov md at ssc.lt
Sun Sep 16 23:05:04 UTC 2018

This is your first endorser.


On 9/16/2018 9:06 PM, Dimitris Zacharopoulos via Public wrote:
> Hi Inigo,
> Tim has withdrawn the changes to ETSI because his main goal is to just 
> fix the Bylaws with the language of Ballot 206. The risk of CAs using 
> the old TS standards is already very high and we should not wait any 
> longer to fix this. I'd be happy to propose a new ballot to fix the 
> ETSI language for the Bylaws and the SCWG charter.
> I will propose replacing:
> "or ETSI TS 102042, ETSI 101456, or ETSI EN 319 411-1"
> with "or ETSI EN 319 411-1".
> That's the only change I am currently willing to propose/endorse. 
> Looking for two endorsers.
> Thanks,
> Dimitris.
> On 14/9/2018 10:06 πμ, InigoBarreira via Servercert-wg wrote:
>> Tim,
>> I´d remove all mentions to ETSI TS documents (102 042 and 101 456) in 
>> all CABF documents. These TSs have not been updated for years, they 
>> don´t reflect the current requirements of the CABF.
>> Regards
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *De:* Servercert-wg [servercert-wg-bounces at cabforum.org] en nombre de 
>> Tim Hollebeek via Servercert-wg [servercert-wg at cabforum.org]
>> *Enviado:* jueves, 13 de septiembre de 2018 20:46
>> *Para:* Tim Hollebeek; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List; Ryan 
>> Sleevi; servercert-wg at cabforum.org
>> *Asunto:* Re: [Servercert-wg] Ballot FORUM-4 v2
>> As discussed on the Validation WG call, this unfortunately is 
>> probably not going to be possible for this particular ballot.  Ben 
>> did a lot of work to get the current redlined document to accurately 
>> reflect what the Bylaws were intended to be at this point.
>> In the attached version 3, I’ve corrected a typo that was left behind 
>> after I reverted the ETSI changes.  I would urge a few people to take 
>> a close look at it and make sure there are no additional errors …
>> I’ll aim to update the ballot (again, sigh…) once I’ve heard from a 
>> few people that it looks good based on analysis that is independent 
>> of mine and Ben’s.
>> -Tim
>> *From:* Public <public-bounces at cabforum.org> *On Behalf Of *Tim 
>> Hollebeek via Public
>> *Sent:* Thursday, September 13, 2018 9:33 AM
>> *To:* Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com>; servercert-wg at cabforum.org
>> *Cc:* CABFPub <public at cabforum.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: [cabfpub] [Servercert-wg] Ballot FORUM-4 v2
>> I’m highly sympathetic to that, especially with a document as 
>> important as the Bylaws.  I’ve had the same concern as well as I look 
>> through Ben’s redline.  After looking at it closer on the plane last 
>> night, I have some concerns about what appear to be some changes to 
>> cross-references that appear correct, but I’m not sure if they’re needed.
>> I will also note that I have previously pointed out that according to 
>> the Bylaws, redlines are REQUIRED, but cannot be trusted in any way, 
>> shape, or form, as our Bylaws clearly state they are ignored for the 
>> purposed of updating the requirements.  Yet everyone seems to want to 
>> review the redlines, not the ballot text.  As I’ve pointed out 
>> several times, creating an additional representation of the changes 
>> that is required but cannot be trusted doesn’t help anyone.
>> This is really, really silly, and I wish people were more vocal and 
>> active in finding a solution to it that works for everyone.  And no, 
>> I don’t want to discuss what tools or processes should be used to 
>> produce redlines.
>> Each ballot should have one and only one official representation of 
>> the proposed changes, and no alternative unofficial changes should be 
>> required.  I’ve circulated several proposals, but I really don’t care 
>> about the details, as long as the problem is solved.
>> In this case, I think I’m going to look and see if the Ballot Text 
>> from 216 applies cleanly to the latest Bylaws, and produce a redline 
>> based on that.
>> -Tim
>> *From:* Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com <mailto:sleevi at google.com>>
>> *Sent:* Thursday, September 13, 2018 2:15 AM
>> *To:* Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com 
>> <mailto:tim.hollebeek at digicert.com>>; servercert-wg at cabforum.org 
>> <mailto:servercert-wg at cabforum.org>
>> *Cc:* CABFPub <public at cabforum.org <mailto:public at cabforum.org>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [Servercert-wg] Ballot FORUM-4 v2
>> Tim,
>> I believe there had been a previous suggestion to provide this as a 
>> clearer redline, rather than an "Adopt Document X". Can you clarify that?
>> By presenting it as you have, it's going to create more work to even 
>> make sure that the formatting of the document - claiming to be a 
>> redline - actually matches to the last canonical version, and that 
>> the changes you've highlighted in red, are, well the changes to be made.
>> I hope you can understand why that's more difficult, because it 
>> requires wholesale comparison rather than taking the previous version 
>> and showing how it would be corrected.
>> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 9:20 PM Tim Hollebeek via Servercert-wg 
>> <servercert-wg at cabforum.org <mailto:servercert-wg at cabforum.org>> wrote:
>>     Ballot FORUM-4 v2: Fix mistakes made during passage of Governance
>>     Reform Ballot 206
>>     Purpose of Ballot
>>     The Governance Reform ballot (Ballot 206 under the old ballot
>>     numbering scheme) was extremely complicated and took roughly two
>>     years to draft.
>>     The changes to the Bylaws from Ballot 216 were intended to be
>>     included in the Governance Reform ballot, but were accidentally
>>     not included.
>>     The attached version of the Bylaws restores the important
>>     discussion period changes that were approved by the members but
>>     then accidentally overwritten.
>>     The following motion has been proposed by Tim Hollebeek of
>>     DigiCert and endorsed by Wayne Thayer of Mozilla and Moudrick
>>     Dadashov of SSC.
>>     --- MOTION BEGINS ---
>>     This ballot replaces the “Bylaws of the CA/Browser Forum” version
>>     1.9 with version 2.0 of those Bylaws, attached to this ballot.
>>     --- MOTION ENDS ---
>>     The procedure for approval of this ballot is as follows:
>>     Discussion (7 days)
>>     Start Time: 2018-09-12, 9:30 pm Eastern Time
>>     End Time: 2018-09-19, 9:30 pm Eastern Time
>>     Vote for approval (7 days)
>>     Start Time: 2018-09-19, 9:30 pm Eastern Time
>>     End Time: 2018-09-26, 9:30 pm Eastern Time
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     Servercert-wg mailing list
>>     Servercert-wg at cabforum.org <mailto:Servercert-wg at cabforum.org>
>>     http://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/servercert-wg
>> _______________________________________________
>> Servercert-wg mailing list
>> Servercert-wg at cabforum.org
>> http://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/servercert-wg
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180917/f7591037/attachment-0003.html>

More information about the Public mailing list