[cabfpub] Creation of S/MIME Certificates Working Group
sleevi at google.com
Thu Mar 12 08:05:31 MST 2020
Is it possible to convert that file to a standard format? I'm having
trouble opening it
On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 10:30 PM Clint Wilson <clintw at apple.com> wrote:
> Hello all,
> I’ve attached below an updated draft charter which addresses the concerns
> I raised previously, especially with regards to section 4.2.3. There are
> additionally changes seeking to address Tim and Ryan’s comments/responses
> below and a few minor updates that seemed warranted as I went through
> another comprehensive review of the document. For each area changed, there
> is a corresponding comment; if anything is unclear, please let me know and
> I’d be happy to address.
> Thank you for your patience and understanding in getting this back to the
> group. Have a great evening!
> On Feb 18, 2020, at 1:57 PM, Ryan Sleevi via Public <public at cabforum.org>
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 1:57 PM Tim Hollebeek via Public <
> public at cabforum.org> wrote:
>> - Automatic cessation of membership
>> - The balloted wording around software update cadences introduces
>> some precision/definition issues that would likely prove troublesome in and
>> of themselves.
>> - While some of those issues could be addressed through
>> wordsmithing, the entire precept that membership may be automatically
>> removed based on various conditions (both for Certificate Consumers
>> *and* Issuers) is itself problematic and I think an area rife for
>> improvement (both here and in other charters).
>> REJECT: The language is consistent with the language in the other working
>> group charters. Introducing new inconsistencies in this charter would be
>> confusing for all involved. If Apple believes these provisions are
>> problematic, potential improvements should be discussed an applied across
>> all chartered working groups.
> I'm not quite sure I understand this rationale, could you explain more.
> Why does this charter need to follow the SCWG/CSWG charter? Who is "all
> involved" that would be confused?
> It seems very valuable to learn from mistakes and concerns and address
> them, but perhaps I'm overlooking something?
>> - Invalid membership requirements/processes
>> - I think Ryan Sleevi has explained most of this better than I could,
>> so I’ll refer to his message instead:
>> - I looked, but failed to find information as to how mail transfer
>> agents consume S/MIME certificates. However, since it’s included in the
>> ballot I can only conclude that the proposer has relevant and detailed
>> insight into how and why this is a valid categorization for Certificate
>> Consumers and had hoped to be pointed to that information so as to better
>> understand the scope of this proposed CWG.
>> REJECT: This was discussed extensively during the governance reform
>> process, and the current procedures were deemed to be sufficient. This
>> charter simply follows those precedents. Indeed, two other chartered
>> working groups were successfully bootstrapped already.
> I understand one group was the Code Signing Working Group, which perhaps
> did not have careful or close review from all Forum members due to the
> explicit lack of intent to participate in the venue or fundamental
> disagreements about the working group objectives.
> However, I'm not sure, what's the other Chartered Working Group you're
> thinking of? The SCWG explicitly did not follow this process, as part of
> the Legacy Working Group transition, and so I'm not sure what the other CWG
> is that avoided this?
> Also, while I agree that this was discussed extensively, I must
> respectfully disagree that the "current procedures were deemed to be
> sufficient". The current (proposed) procedures were known to be problematic
> in bootstrapping, something we discussed, and something we knew we could
> avoid by defining an open and welcoming charter. This WG does not seem to
> set out to do this.
> In all fairness, this seems a repeat of the same issues the bedeviled, and
> nearly derailed, the Forum in it's first start. The attempt to exclude some
> CAs, via narrowly and restrictively scoped membership, nearly resulted in
> the implosion of the Forum, as the management@ archives from 2009 show.
> Ultimately, it was the Forum's rejection of such exclusionary attempts that
> helped grow the membership. In particular, it was DigiCert who some were
> trying to prevent from joining the Forum, so it would be unfortunate to
> have DigiCert repeat that same process.
> I'm hoping you're open to addressing these issues, but I don't think we
> can support the charter without this issue being addressed.
> Public mailing list
> Public at cabforum.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Public