[Servercert-wg] [cabfpub] Ballot FORUM-4 v2
Moudrick M. Dadashov
md at ssc.lt
Sun Sep 16 16:05:04 MST 2018
This is your first endorser.
Thanks,
M.D.
On 9/16/2018 9:06 PM, Dimitris Zacharopoulos via Public wrote:
> Hi Inigo,
>
> Tim has withdrawn the changes to ETSI because his main goal is to just
> fix the Bylaws with the language of Ballot 206. The risk of CAs using
> the old TS standards is already very high and we should not wait any
> longer to fix this. I'd be happy to propose a new ballot to fix the
> ETSI language for the Bylaws and the SCWG charter.
>
> I will propose replacing:
>
> "or ETSI TS 102042, ETSI 101456, or ETSI EN 319 411-1"
>
> with "or ETSI EN 319 411-1".
>
> That's the only change I am currently willing to propose/endorse.
> Looking for two endorsers.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Dimitris.
>
>
>
> On 14/9/2018 10:06 πμ, InigoBarreira via Servercert-wg wrote:
>> Tim,
>>
>> I´d remove all mentions to ETSI TS documents (102 042 and 101 456) in
>> all CABF documents. These TSs have not been updated for years, they
>> don´t reflect the current requirements of the CABF.
>>
>> Regards
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *De:* Servercert-wg [servercert-wg-bounces at cabforum.org] en nombre de
>> Tim Hollebeek via Servercert-wg [servercert-wg at cabforum.org]
>> *Enviado:* jueves, 13 de septiembre de 2018 20:46
>> *Para:* Tim Hollebeek; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List; Ryan
>> Sleevi; servercert-wg at cabforum.org
>> *Asunto:* Re: [Servercert-wg] Ballot FORUM-4 v2
>>
>> As discussed on the Validation WG call, this unfortunately is
>> probably not going to be possible for this particular ballot. Ben
>> did a lot of work to get the current redlined document to accurately
>> reflect what the Bylaws were intended to be at this point.
>>
>> In the attached version 3, I’ve corrected a typo that was left behind
>> after I reverted the ETSI changes. I would urge a few people to take
>> a close look at it and make sure there are no additional errors …
>>
>> I’ll aim to update the ballot (again, sigh…) once I’ve heard from a
>> few people that it looks good based on analysis that is independent
>> of mine and Ben’s.
>>
>> -Tim
>>
>> *From:* Public <public-bounces at cabforum.org> *On Behalf Of *Tim
>> Hollebeek via Public
>> *Sent:* Thursday, September 13, 2018 9:33 AM
>> *To:* Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com>; servercert-wg at cabforum.org
>> *Cc:* CABFPub <public at cabforum.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: [cabfpub] [Servercert-wg] Ballot FORUM-4 v2
>>
>> I’m highly sympathetic to that, especially with a document as
>> important as the Bylaws. I’ve had the same concern as well as I look
>> through Ben’s redline. After looking at it closer on the plane last
>> night, I have some concerns about what appear to be some changes to
>> cross-references that appear correct, but I’m not sure if they’re needed.
>>
>> I will also note that I have previously pointed out that according to
>> the Bylaws, redlines are REQUIRED, but cannot be trusted in any way,
>> shape, or form, as our Bylaws clearly state they are ignored for the
>> purposed of updating the requirements. Yet everyone seems to want to
>> review the redlines, not the ballot text. As I’ve pointed out
>> several times, creating an additional representation of the changes
>> that is required but cannot be trusted doesn’t help anyone.
>>
>> This is really, really silly, and I wish people were more vocal and
>> active in finding a solution to it that works for everyone. And no,
>> I don’t want to discuss what tools or processes should be used to
>> produce redlines.
>>
>> Each ballot should have one and only one official representation of
>> the proposed changes, and no alternative unofficial changes should be
>> required. I’ve circulated several proposals, but I really don’t care
>> about the details, as long as the problem is solved.
>>
>> In this case, I think I’m going to look and see if the Ballot Text
>> from 216 applies cleanly to the latest Bylaws, and produce a redline
>> based on that.
>>
>> -Tim
>>
>> *From:* Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com <mailto:sleevi at google.com>>
>> *Sent:* Thursday, September 13, 2018 2:15 AM
>> *To:* Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com
>> <mailto:tim.hollebeek at digicert.com>>; servercert-wg at cabforum.org
>> <mailto:servercert-wg at cabforum.org>
>> *Cc:* CABFPub <public at cabforum.org <mailto:public at cabforum.org>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [Servercert-wg] Ballot FORUM-4 v2
>>
>> Tim,
>>
>> I believe there had been a previous suggestion to provide this as a
>> clearer redline, rather than an "Adopt Document X". Can you clarify that?
>>
>> By presenting it as you have, it's going to create more work to even
>> make sure that the formatting of the document - claiming to be a
>> redline - actually matches to the last canonical version, and that
>> the changes you've highlighted in red, are, well the changes to be made.
>>
>> I hope you can understand why that's more difficult, because it
>> requires wholesale comparison rather than taking the previous version
>> and showing how it would be corrected.
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 9:20 PM Tim Hollebeek via Servercert-wg
>> <servercert-wg at cabforum.org <mailto:servercert-wg at cabforum.org>> wrote:
>>
>> Ballot FORUM-4 v2: Fix mistakes made during passage of Governance
>> Reform Ballot 206
>>
>> Purpose of Ballot
>>
>> The Governance Reform ballot (Ballot 206 under the old ballot
>> numbering scheme) was extremely complicated and took roughly two
>> years to draft.
>>
>> The changes to the Bylaws from Ballot 216 were intended to be
>> included in the Governance Reform ballot, but were accidentally
>> not included.
>>
>> The attached version of the Bylaws restores the important
>> discussion period changes that were approved by the members but
>> then accidentally overwritten.
>>
>> The following motion has been proposed by Tim Hollebeek of
>> DigiCert and endorsed by Wayne Thayer of Mozilla and Moudrick
>> Dadashov of SSC.
>>
>> --- MOTION BEGINS ---
>>
>> This ballot replaces the “Bylaws of the CA/Browser Forum” version
>> 1.9 with version 2.0 of those Bylaws, attached to this ballot.
>>
>> --- MOTION ENDS ---
>>
>> The procedure for approval of this ballot is as follows:
>>
>> Discussion (7 days)
>>
>> Start Time: 2018-09-12, 9:30 pm Eastern Time
>>
>> End Time: 2018-09-19, 9:30 pm Eastern Time
>>
>> Vote for approval (7 days)
>>
>> Start Time: 2018-09-19, 9:30 pm Eastern Time
>>
>> End Time: 2018-09-26, 9:30 pm Eastern Time
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Servercert-wg mailing list
>> Servercert-wg at cabforum.org <mailto:Servercert-wg at cabforum.org>
>> http://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/servercert-wg
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Servercert-wg mailing list
>> Servercert-wg at cabforum.org
>> http://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/servercert-wg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Public mailing list
> Public at cabforum.org
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/servercert-wg/attachments/20180917/f7591037/attachment.html>
More information about the Servercert-wg
mailing list