[cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: Draft SMIME Working Group Charter
Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA)
dzacharo at harica.gr
Wed Feb 6 04:52:52 UTC 2019
On 6/2/2019 12:38 π.μ., Dean Coclin via Public wrote:
> Well I agree with your first comment 😉 “I suspect we'll disagree on this”
> This is a good topic for the F2F meeting as it will likely be more
> productive to have this discussion there and try to come to some
> Dimitris-is this already on the agenda? If not, can we add?
It certainly is. It might need more time though, we can update. We will
discuss the F2F agenda on our scheduled teleconference call on February
21st. Of course, if members want to propose additional topics, they can
check the draft agenda on the wiki and send me any updates they would
like to see.
For what it's worth, I agree with Dean that we should allow Identity in
the scope and prioritize our focus. It was one of my earlier comments
when the document was drafted and it's included as a comment in the
online draft. The risk Ryan describes seems acceptable to me and
something we can handle by adding the appropriate language in the Charter.
> *From:* Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 5, 2019 4:39 PM
> *To:* Dean Coclin <dean.coclin at digicert.com>
> *Cc:* CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>;
> Wayne Thayer <wthayer at mozilla.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: Draft SMIME Working Group Charter
> On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 4:29 PM Dean Coclin <dean.coclin at digicert.com
> <mailto:dean.coclin at digicert.com>> wrote:
> While that’s true, there’s also the risk to that approach in that
> the community feels that topic X is not included in the charter
> and therefore will not be addressed or feel that it’s not
> important a topic to be addressed.
> By including it in the initial charter and by specifying the order
> of events, that insures it will be covered at some point. The
> charter can say simply (with better wording):
> “Topics A, B, C and X, Y, Z will be covered in the charter. Topics
> A, B, C will be the first ones addressed in the initial release of
> the guidelines. Topics X, Y, Z will be addressed in a subsequent
> release. The initial guidelines will have to be voted on and
> approved prior to moving to topics X, Y, Z.” This avoids the risk
> you describe about starting to work on the secondary topics before
> the first ones are approved.
> This insures the relevant topics expressed by the community are in
> scope but that an ordering is preferred and necessary. It also
> avoids a problem later on by anyone who doesn’t want to cover
> topics X, Y, Z and forces the working group to disband before they
> are addressed.
> I suspect we'll disagree on this, but what you describe as a bug is
> actually a feature.
> It defers the debate about topics X, Y, and Z, and how to address
> them, and when to address them, to a time later suited, in order to
> ensure that focus is executed on A, B, C.
> I'm supportive of language that helps assuage folks concerns by
> clarifying that it's excluded from scope without a statement about
> fitness for purpose, if that is the only reason to include X, Y, Z in
> the charter, but I believe there is substantial harm in including it
> as you've presented, for the reasons I explained previously.
> And while I realize that many members would prefer not to think about
> IP issues, including X, Y, and Z in scope mean that, at any time,
> participation may touch on IP on those topics, even if they're not
> 'yet' being tackled. Explicitly excluding from scope, and
> rechartering, helps provide meaningful check points for progress.
> Just as we talk about how "good" ballots are one that are focused and
> narrow to a problem at hand - which the Validation WG has done a
> fairly great job at demonstrating - the same applies to charters.
> Keeping focus is extremely valuable, and we shouldn't compromise that.
> Public mailing list
> Public at cabforum.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Public