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

[Ryan Sleevi]

Oh, for sure. I wasn't trying to fork discussion, so much as provide more
specific and contextual suggestions for generalized problems. The nice
thing is that I can make or suggest changes on the GitHub in order to make
it easier for you to evaluate/integrate, but post the links back here for
the Forum to provide context and visibility, which I'll now go and do :)

On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 3:29 PM Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com>
wrote:

> 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>
> 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>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 20, 2019 2:13 PM
> *To:* Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com>; CA/B Forum Server
> Certificate WG Public Discussion List <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> 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
> http://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/servercert-wg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/servercert-wg/attachments/20190820/79b5ba02/attachment.html>