[cabfpub] Ballot FORUM-12: Creation of S/MIME Certificates Working Group

Fri May 22 19:10:05 UTC 2020

Yeah, the ballot number was a tyop (should be 14).  I’ll fix.

-Tim

From: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com> 
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 6:20 PM
To: Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com>
Cc: CABforum1 <public at cabforum.org>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot FORUM-12: Creation of S/MIME Certificates Working Group

Oh, and the ballot number will need to be updated - I'm not sure how both collided on 'FORUM-12' (Dimitris' Bylaws ballot and this)

On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 6:18 PM Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com <mailto:sleevi at google.com> > wrote:

On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 2:20 PM Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com <mailto:tim.hollebeek at digicert.com> > wrote:

I’m willing to drop the scope statement based on Thursday’s discussion and the addition of the paragraph I suggested to the introduction, which describes much of the same thing in a form that seems more acceptable to most.  Clint and Wayne, are you ok with that?

On the subject of redlines, //github_redline_guide is not normative, so I disagree that it is not a valid Ballot.  But that’s not really important, because I’m more than happy to improve the ballot by fixing the link.

While I realize we end up frequently discussing this, I think you may have missed that this was a different scenario than you may have realized.

If your ballot had included the full text, then I agree, the redline link was not normative. However, your ballot just pointed to a link, and so that made the link itself normative. The contents of the link were not actually a charter, they were just a few edits. That's why it wasn't really a "Ballot".

This is easily fixed in the next run. You can paste the full text, as I think you're one of the folks who still prefers to do so, despite the risks, or you could provide the full link to all the edits, which will at least include a "full charter". Just a single commit on its own, or "as of this revision", can end up being ambiguous :) In the future, the infrastructure WG efforts will certainly make this easier, and it's not difficult to imagine an easy "create a ballot for me" that provides the PDF, docx, and patch file and stable link, so appreciate your patience :)

Assuming Clint and Wayne sign off, please merge the change, and I’ll update the ballot.

One more set of issues, now that scope has been finalized, that came up on another review cycle: https://github.com/sleevi/cabforum-docs/pull/22/files

-Tim

From: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com <mailto:sleevi at google.com> > 
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 5:44 PM
To: Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com <mailto:tim.hollebeek at digicert.com> >; CABforum1 <public at cabforum.org <mailto:public at cabforum.org> >
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot FORUM-12: Creation of S/MIME Certificates Working Group

On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 5:18 PM Tim Hollebeek via Public <public at cabforum.org <mailto:public at cabforum.org> > wrote:

Upon approval of the CAB Forum by ballot in accordance with section 5.3 of the Bylaws, the S/MIME Certificates Working Group (“SMWG”) is created to perform the activities as specified in the Charter, with the Charter as described here (https://github.com/cabforum/documents/pull/167/commits/2aa376c06b45146249d0cc6b8cc5d42d08ccb177).

Just to be clear: This link doesn't match the link for a valid proposal, so I don't think this is a valid Ballot yet. https://wiki.cabforum.org/github_redline_guide is helpful, but any suggestions for improvements are welcome.

The immutable link is https://github.com/cabforum/documents/compare/6e0b8e61590164eb2d686ddcf266b189f46fc636...2aa376c06b45146249d0cc6b8cc5d42d08ccb177

The pull request is still https://github.com/cabforum/documents/pull/167 

Again, our concern is that the statement that "non-publicly trusted S/MIME certificates are out of scope" accomplishes nothing valuable, and causes real harm. That is, either it fails to keep anything out of scope due to its definition, OR limits the discussion to being impossible to introduce any new requirements due to, by definition, anything not in the existing documents is out of scope. Neither of these scenarios are good, and the risk of harm outweighs any benefits. We remain committed to trying to work with you and understand your goals, to find language that better captures those goals without the problematic ambiguity and harm of what's being proposed.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20200522/f7ef00df/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/20200522/f7ef00df/attachment-0003.p7s>