[Servercert-wg] [cabfpub] Ballot FORUM-4 v2

Dimitris Zacharopoulos jimmy at it.auth.gr
Mon Sep 17 01:08:27 MST 2018


On 17/9/2018 10:39 πμ, InigoBarreira wrote:
> Dimitris, I´m Ok and you have now 2 endorsers, but why still the "or"? 
> There´s no options.

It's "Webtrust or...."

Dimitris.

>
> Regards
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *De:* Mads Egil Henriksveen [Mads.Henriksveen at buypass.no]
> *Enviado:* lunes, 17 de septiembre de 2018 7:00
> *Para:* Moudrick M. Dadashov; CA/B Forum Server Certificate WG Public 
> Discussion List; Dimitris Zacharopoulos; CA/Browser Forum Public 
> Discussion List; InigoBarreira
> *Asunto:* RE: [Servercert-wg] [cabfpub] Ballot FORUM-4 v2
>
> I will endorse.
>
> Regards
>
> Mads
>
> *From:*Servercert-wg <servercert-wg-bounces at cabforum.org> *On Behalf 
> Of *Moudrick M. Dadashov via Servercert-wg
> *Sent:* mandag 17. september 2018 01:05
> *To:* Dimitris Zacharopoulos <jimmy at it.auth.gr>; CA/Browser Forum 
> Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>; InigoBarreira 
> <v-inigo at 360.cn>; CA/B Forum Server Certificate WG Public Discussion 
> List <servercert-wg at cabforum.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Servercert-wg] [cabfpub] Ballot FORUM-4 v2
>
> 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     Tim has withdrawn the changes to ETSI because his main goal is to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
>         <mailto:servercert-wg-bounces at cabforum.org>] en nombre de Tim
>         Hollebeek via Servercert-wg [servercert-wg at cabforum.org
>         <mailto: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
>         <mailto: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>
>         <mailto: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>
>         <mailto:sleevi at google.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: [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 <mailto:Servercert-wg at cabforum.org>
>
>         http://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/servercert-wg
>
>
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>
>     Public mailing list
>
>     Public at cabforum.org <mailto: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/20180917/8ff494d0/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Servercert-wg mailing list