[cabf_validation] [cabfPAG] Domain Validation Methods Proposal

[kirk_hall at trendmicro.com]

Thanks for the explanation, Gerv.  I think it will be some weeks before a revised draft ballot modifying the domain validation methods under BR 3.2.2.4 (formerly BR 11.1.1) will be ready for review by the PAG.  The VWG's plan is to continue working on a draft ballot until we think it's in good shape, then sent it to the public list and full Forum for discussion and suggestions, that bring it back to the VWG for any final editing.  At that point, there will be an actual proposed ballot on new validation methods that can come back to the full Forum and to public list for final discussion and adoption.



The best time for the PAG to look at a finished ballot, therefore, is at the end, after the review by the VWG and Forum has been completed, and any final edits have been made.



In the meantime -- to my knowledge, the PAG has never reviewed the six EXISTING domain validation methods of CURRENT BR 3.2.2.4.  Because these six methods will all be included in the new ballot (plus some additional validation methods that we are adding), it might be a useful project for the PAG right now to review the CURRENT BR 3.2.2.4 domain validation methods against all disclosed patent claims.  Whatever the result is, it will be useful later when the revised ballot is ready for PAG review.  Does that make sense to you?



Kirk



-----Original Message-----
From: Gervase Markham [mailto:gerv at mozilla.org]
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 2:06 AM
To: Ryan Sleevi; Kirk Hall (RD-US)
Cc: pag at cabforum.org
Subject: Re: [cabfPAG] Domain Validation Methods Proposal



On 29/07/15 01:34, Ryan Sleevi wrote:

> As expressed on the call, members of the PAG wished to understand the

> active proposals in the Validation WG.



Yes; I asked for Ben to circulate the current Validation WG proposal for the information of the PAG members. Many PAG members are not members of the Validation WG (and some have not been involved in CAB Forum before)

- I thought it would be useful, as part of getting everyone up to speed, for the most recent draft to be circulated.



It seems that it was circulated at a time when the draft is in more than usual flux - that's unfortunate, but not a big problem. Perhaps when the WG has discussed it a bit more we can circulate an updated draft.



The point is, if the PAG is going to be discussing the possibility applicability of patents to proposals in this area (which it may well be), then knowing what those proposals _are_ is reasonably relevant.



Gerv

<table class="TM_EMAIL_NOTICE"><tr><td><pre>
TREND MICRO EMAIL NOTICE
The information contained in this email and any attachments is confidential 
and may be subject to copyright or other intellectual property protection. 
If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to use or 
disclose this information, and we request that you notify us by reply mail or
telephone and delete the original message from your mail system.
</pre></td></tr></table>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/attachments/20150729/5ff84626/attachment.html