[Servercert-wg] LEI Ballot - looking for second endorser

[Tim Hollebeek]

Okay, I was trying to keep the discussion here because not everyone uses github, but I’m not picky.  If you want to discuss it there that’s fine.

 

-Tim

 

From: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com> 
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 2:28 PM
To: Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com>
Cc: CA/B Forum Server Certificate WG Public Discussion List <servercert-wg at cabforum.org>
Subject: Re: [Servercert-wg] LEI Ballot - looking for second endorser

 

Sounds like there was still some confusion. If you open a draft pull request, it's easier to discuss inline and offer clearer suggestions then on ways to resolve.

 

On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 2:27 PM Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com <mailto:tim.hollebeek at digicert.com> > wrote:

I made both of the changes you wanted – added a requirement for FULLY_CORROBORATED, and removed an unnecessary sentence or two from the definitions.

 

-Tim

 

From: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com <mailto:sleevi at google.com> > 
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 2:13 PM
To: Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com <mailto:tim.hollebeek at digicert.com> >; CA/B Forum Server Certificate WG Public Discussion List <servercert-wg at cabforum.org <mailto:servercert-wg at cabforum.org> >
Subject: Re: [Servercert-wg] LEI Ballot - looking for second endorser

 

Tim,

 

Are you open to feedback within GitHub, including potential corrections? If so, you can open a draft pull request (e.g. as done with https://github.com/cabforum/documents/pull/138 ) which can allow such comments and collaboration, as discussed at the Greece F2F.

 

I don't see any changes from the issues discussed on the call. I know you've expressed an opinion that changes will not be made unless someone gives you alternative text, but I'm curious if it was intentional in this case to not incorporate that feedback before seeking a co-endorser?

 

As the ballot currently stands, this would be a No vote from us, and so I'd like to try to help you understand the concerns we've raised previously, so they can be integrated before proceeding to ballot, if possible.

 

On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 1:54 PM Tim Hollebeek via Servercert-wg <servercert-wg at cabforum.org <mailto:servercert-wg at cabforum.org> > wrote:

 

Ballot SC??: Legal Entity Identifiers

Purpose of Ballot: Allow for the inclusion of globally unique LEI identifiers

into the cabfOrganizationIdentifier field.

 

The following motion has been proposed by Tim Hollebeek of DigiCert and endorsed 

by Richard Smith of Sectigo and ??? of ???.

 

---MOTION BEGINS---

 

Amend the EV Guidelines version 1.7.0 as follows:

 

https://github.com/cabforum/documents/compare/master...timfromdigicert:Ballot-LEI?expand=1

 

---MOTION ENDS---

 

The procedure for approval of this ballot is as follows:

Discussion (7+ days)

Start Time: ???

End Time: ???

Vote for approval (7 days)

Start Time: ???

End Time: ???

_______________________________________________
Servercert-wg mailing list
Servercert-wg at cabforum.org <mailto:Servercert-wg at cabforum.org> 
http://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/servercert-wg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/servercert-wg/attachments/20190820/3312e2e8/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4940 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/servercert-wg/attachments/20190820/3312e2e8/attachment-0001.p7s>