[Servercert-wg] CANCEL Notice of Review Period – Ballot SC35

[Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA)]

On 14/9/2020 8:08 μ.μ., Ryan Sleevi wrote:
> Yes, I'm aware of the "what", but it's not clear the "why".
>
> The act of combining ballots is relatively new, as you can see from 
> https://cabforum.org/baseline-requirements-documents/ . Producing 
> multiple versions of the Guidelines, linear based on when the Ballot 
> concluded, was something our GitHub flow intentionally was to make 
> easy. While that page stopped listing dates of adoption around Ballot 
> 189, you can see previous ballot pairs (e.g. 171+164, 125+118+134+135) 
> that did that.
>
> It seems worth figuring out the challenges you're facing, since it was 
> meant to be very easy to create a new version of the document for each 
> ballot, even ballots that conclude closely, and to have IP reviews as 
> such.

The administrative overhead of updating public web sites, sending 
additional emails, and the fact that we would have versions of the 
Guidelines that would be valid for a few seconds (which seems 
unreasonable for a public standards document), are some of the reasons 
behind aggregated final guidelines. Version 1.6.4 aggregated 3 ballots, 
1.6.7 and 1.7.1. had 2 and now 1.7.2.

This process was discussed with Dean and Wayne back in February 2019, 
and we all considered it compliant with our Bylaws. The results of each 
IPR review period were sent to the public lists without receiving any 
objections or concerns.

Although we have documented a GitHub workflow that supports the most 
common case (one ballot, one IPR review, one Final Maintenance 
Guideline), it should not prohibit aggregated ballots to minimize 
administrative overhead or the production of Guidelines that have some 
reasonable validity time.

If there are strong objections to this process, we can revise it going 
forward.


Thanks,
Dimitris.

>
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 11:46 AM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) 
> <dzacharo at harica.gr <mailto:dzacharo at harica.gr>> wrote:
>
>
>
>     On 2020-09-14 5:45 μ.μ., Ryan Sleevi wrote:
>>     Dimitris: Could you explain why it's necessary to integrate?
>>
>>     It seems much better to have Ballot -> Distinct BR version, and
>>     there's nothing in our IP policy I'm aware of that requires you
>>     to send them as a combined review.
>>
>
>     The result of the IPR review will produce a new version of the
>     Guidelines. Having two ballots with two IPR review periods would
>     probably require creating two versions of the Guidelines, which is
>     why we've been trying to combine reviews in the past, so we can
>     bump up one version of the Guideline.
>
>     Hope this helps.
>
>>     On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 4:38 AM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA)
>>     via Servercert-wg <servercert-wg at cabforum.org
>>     <mailto:servercert-wg at cabforum.org>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>         I just realized that ballot SC28 also contains changes to the
>>         BRs so I will create a combined IPR review for ballots SC35
>>         and SC28 later today.
>>
>>         Thank you,
>>         Dimitris.
>>
>>
>>         On 2020-09-14 11:02 π.μ., Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) wrote:
>>>
>>>         *NOTICE OF REVIEW PERIOD*
>>>
>>>         **
>>>
>>>         This Review Notice is sent pursuant to Section 4.1 of the
>>>         CA/Browser Forum’s Intellectual Property Rights Policy
>>>         (v1.3).This Review Period is for two Final Maintenance
>>>         Guidelines (30 day Review Period).Attached are the complete
>>>         Draft Guidelines subject of this Review Notice.
>>>
>>>
>>>         Ballots for Review: 	Ballot SC35
>>>         <https://cabforum.org/2020/09/09/ballot-sc35-cleanups-and-clarifications/>
>>>
>>>         Start of Review Period: 	September 14, 2020 at 11:00 Eastern
>>>         Time
>>>         End of Review Period: 	October 14, 2020 at 11:00 Eastern Time
>>>
>>>
>>>         Please forward a written notice to exclude Essential Claims
>>>         to the Forum and Working Group Chair by email to
>>>         dzacharo at harica.gr <mailto:dzacharo at harica.gr> and a copy to
>>>         the CA/B Forum public mailing list public at cabforum.org
>>>         <mailto:public at cabforum.org> before the end of the Review
>>>         Period.
>>>
>>>
>>>         See current version of CA/Browser Forum Intellectual
>>>         Property Rights Policy for details.
>>>
>>>         /(Optional form of Exclusion Notice is available at
>>>         https://cabforum.org/wp-content/uploads/Template-for-Exclusion-Notice.pdf)/
>>>
>>>         //
>>>
>>
>>         _______________________________________________
>>         Servercert-wg mailing list
>>         Servercert-wg at cabforum.org <mailto:Servercert-wg at cabforum.org>
>>         https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/servercert-wg
>>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/servercert-wg/attachments/20200915/cddb790c/attachment.html>