[cabfpub] Final Minutes for CA/Browser Forum Teleconference - June 25, 2020

Thu Jul 9 18:03:20 UTC 2020

These are the final Minutes of the Teleconference described in the 
subject of this message.*
*

    Attendees (in alphabetical order)

Andrea Holland (SecureTrust), Inaba Atsushi (GlobalSign), Ben Wilson 
(Mozilla), Bruce Morton (Entrust Datacard), Chris Kemmerer (SSL.com), 
Clint Wilson (Apple), Corey Bonnell (SecureTrust), Dean Coclin 
(DigiCert), Dimitris Zacharopolous (HARICA) [Chair], Doug Beattie 
(GlobalSign), Dustin Hollenback (Microsoft), Encrico Entschew (D-TRUST), 
Janet Hines (SecureTrust), Li-Chun Chen (Chunghwa Telecom), Mads 
Henriksveen (Buypass), Mike Reilly (Microsoft), Neil Dunbar (TrustCor), 
Niko Carpenter (SecureTrust), Patrick Nohe (GlobalSign), Pedro Fuentes 
(Wisekey), Peter Miskovic (Disig), Ryan Sleevi (Google), Shelley Brewer 
(DigiCert), Taconis Lewis (Protiviti), Tim Hollebeek (DigiCert), Tobias 
Josefowitz (Opera), Trevoli Ponds-White (Amazon), Wendy Brown (FPKI).

    Minutes

      1. Roll Call

The Chair took attendance.

      2. Read Antitrust Statement

The Antitrust Statement was read.

      3. Review Agenda, Assign Minute Taker

Mike Reilly will take the minutes for the July 9th. No changes to the 
agenda were noted.

      4. Approval of minutes from previous teleconference

The minutes were already approved.

      5. Forum Infrastructure Subcommittee update

Jos Purvis reported that there has been no meeting since F2F. Work 
continues on documenting the process of launching a new Working Group, 
led by Steven Davidson, who has identified the gaps in the process 
documentation.

Dimitris has created a draft page on the wiki, attempting to gather 
information from various WGs, attempting to generalise it for future 
WGs. This process started with the Code Signing Working Group, and 
continues with results of newer WG launches.

Ryan Sleevi asked for an update on SC26 (Pandoc). Jos replied that the 
code was working on all current documents, minus a few tweaks. This 
should then allow the BRs to be published via Pandoc. Following that, a 
ballot will follow allowing the EV documents and NCSSRs to be translated 
into the same Pandoc friendly format. This will finally mean that all 
CA/B documents can share the same publication process.

Ryan added that after that, emanating from the SC30 and SC31 
discussions, the next step should be to make it easier to produce 
redline diffs, since not everyone was happy with GitHub redlines, or 
would prefer an alternative mechanism. The current Pandoc software can 
emit PDFs, DOCX and HTML documents, so the work should be done to create 
redlines corresponding to those formats. There is a roadmap for this 
work to be done, but Ryan acknowledges that redlines are a known gap in 
document production.

Tim suggested, by way of assisting the S/MIME and Code Signing Working 
Groups, a Pandoc friendly bare RFC 3647 template document would be very 
handy. Jos indicated support for this idea.

Neil suggested that CAs who use Pandoc with RFC 3647 to produce their 
CPSes might be a good starting point for this. Jos indicated that 
couldn't hurt - while it might not be useful for producing the BRs, it 
would certainly be useful for other CAs to produce their CPS in that format.

Ryan said that he has added the ability to support per-workng 
group/subcommitte tags to Github. This allows issues and pull requests 
to be categorized by working group interest. This moves us closer to the 
goal of allowing appropriate Github activity to be sent to the relevant 
working group or subcomittee memberships. Thus there is now a tag for 
Validation subcomittee and a similar one for Netsec. There are tags for 
documents as well as workign group tags. Ryan has iterated over the open 
issues, and tagged them as appropriate.

Thus anyone looking at Github will see lots of different colours in the 
issues list.

Dimitris said that he was looking forward merging these changes and 
getting the prepared documents ready, resulting in both PDFs and Word 
documents of the BRs when we propose ballots.
<https://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/2020-May/000240.html>

      6. Code Signing Working Group update

Dean said that they were amost ready to go to ballot with the combined 
document. Some minor errors were discovered which Bruce Morton has 
fixed. Since Bruce is away for the week, further progress will need to 
wait for a little while.

Ian from Microsoft and Bruce have added some text on Parking Lot items; 
specifically on private key protection and high risk requests. The 
considerations for high risk requests will be presented on July 15th 
when Ian returns.

Tim Crawford from Webtrust talked about auditing of the combined 
document, based on the text which is current, assuming that it passes as 
a ballot.

RFC3647 reformat will be upcoming on a future meeting.

The July 6th meeting will be cancelled in favour of a July 7th date, 
owing to the US holiday, but will resume normal schedule after that.

      7.  S/MIME Working Group update

Stephen Davidson was absent, so Tim Hollebeek updated in his stead.

Tim said that they were going through the correct process to establish 
the working group per its charter - the charter has a clause indicating 
restart of process if irregularities are found in establishment. After 
that the call for participation will commence and meetings will proceed 
from that.

Dimitris said that mailing lists and wiki space are being created, as 
well as a page on the public website, so things are moving.

      8.  Update Action Items (added items from F2F 50)

Dimitris: Introduces agenda for the plenary. It includes 1 ½ Hours on 
Wednesday (updates from different working groups and subcommittees). An 
additional slot was added to give everyone a reminder of the elections 
process scheduled for this summer. No proposals for new topics were 
received.

Tim: Proposes adding half an hour for discussion of the differences in 
various charters. We are going to have three chartered working groups. 
There are various differences in the Charters and the way they handle 
e.g. the Bylaws and the charter templates. A discussion of those issues 
and some of the issues found recently while reviewing Charters and what 
people think about fixing those issues could take place.

Dimitris: There is already a slot for that. 20 minutes are allocated for 
that and time from the “any other business” can be used.

Tim agrees.

Dimitris: Time will be sufficient, because most of the Bylaw issues have 
been solved with the 2.3 update.

Tim: There are a couple of new ones.

Dimitris: OK.

No objections. Agenda is approved.

      9. Eligibility for WG chairs for upcoming elections

Dimitris wanted clarity on whether it was permitted for existing WG 
chairs to be candidates to the position in upcoming elections (which are 
due for the SCWG, the CSCWG and the overall Forum). He believed that the 
position for the Forum chair was clear, but it was unclear if this 
equally applied to the Working Groups themselves.

Dean Coclin replied that the CSC Working Group had discussed this, and 
the consensus was that there is no restriction preventing reelection for 
the CSCWG.

Dimitris asked if this would be the case for SCWG. Since it is not 
explicitly mentioned in SCWG charter, he assumed it would be 
permissible. Dean said that it was a matter for the SCWG. Dimitris 
replied that charters are a matter for the Forum, since charters are 
approved at that level.

Dean's answer was that if the charter was being revised it goes to the 
Forum. Since no charter is being changed, it remains within the SCWG's 
purview.

Dimitris thought that the CSCWG's interpretation probably was 
acceptable, and thus should apply more broadly. He felt that this should 
be minuted so that the elections can proceed with clarity.

Dean replied that he had consulted previous minutes, and the same 
conclusion was drawn, that absent a particular restriction, an existing 
chair could stand for re-election.

      10. Any Other Business

Mike Reilly asked for any updates on the Tokyo meeting (ie, whether it 
should be virtual). Dimitris replied that he was unaware of any updates.

Doug Beattie thought that we should get this discussed soon, owing to 
logistical challenges, such as internation travel restrictions. Trev 
Ponds-White said that she couldn't imagine any country wanting visitors 
from the US at this time.

It was resolved to have a final decision on the agenda for the next call.

      11. Next call

The next call will take place on July 9th, 2020 at 11.30am Eastern Time.

      Adjourned

      F2F Meeting Schedule:

  * 2020: October 20-22 Tokyo (GlobalSign)
  * 2021: Feb-March San Jose, CA (Cisco), June – Poland (Asseco-Certum),
    October - Minneapolis (OATI)
  * 2022: Mar-April New Delhi / Bengaluru (e-Mudhra), June - [Open],
    October - [Open]

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20200709/02e3e68b/attachment-0001.html>