[Servercert-wg] [EXTERNAL]Re: Proposal to address ballot effective date problem

[Wayne Thayer]

On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 10:21 AM Tim Hollebeek via Servercert-wg <
servercert-wg at cabforum.org> wrote:

> I do indeed have the concerns you mentioned about batching, especially
> with regards to permissive ballots (and clarifications).
>
>
>
> I would hope the rules would take that into account, for example, by
> allowing compliance as early as the effective date, and mandating
> compliance by the next scheduled publication date.  This would
> automatically create a transition period for each ballot, without having to
> explicitly encode it.  The length of the transition would vary, but I think
> that could be managed.
>
>
>
> Operationalizing that, if it turns out to be the direction we want to go,
> might be hard.
>
>
>
> I tend to think that a simpler solution along the lines we discussed, like
> a X day window after effective date to comply, is better.  And easier to
> put into effect in the short term.  Though scheduled updates are
> attractive, longer term, if we can figure them out.
>
>
>
I would simplify further by just requiring that each ballot define an
effective date that is not sooner than the end of the IPR review period.

Another advantage to scheduled updates is that it is easier to
> automatically avoid holidays, blackout periods, and so on.  That’s an issue
> that we’ve had several times before, for example, I remember discussing it
> with you extensively in Bilbao.
>
>
>
> -Tim
>
>
> <http://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/servercert-wg>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/servercert-wg/attachments/20181023/1cb4b780/attachment.html>