Thank you Wayne! Similarly, this draft is one Apple would be willing to endorse or propose.
Cheers! -Clint > On Mar 12, 2020, at 7:43 PM, Wayne Thayer <wtha...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Thank you Clint! I have reviewed this draft and I'm happy with it. Assuming > that Tim and Ryan feel their concerns have been addressed, I am willing to > endorse a new ballot on behalf of Mozilla. > > - Wayne > > On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 8:07 AM Clint Wilson via Public <public@cabforum.org > <mailto:public@cabforum.org>> wrote: > Sure thing, here’s a Word formatted version :) > > > >> On Mar 12, 2020, at 8:05 AM, Ryan Sleevi <sle...@google.com >> <mailto:sle...@google.com>> wrote: >> >> Hey Clint, >> >> Is it possible to convert that file to a standard format? I'm having trouble >> opening it >> >> On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 10:30 PM Clint Wilson <cli...@apple.com >> <mailto:cli...@apple.com>> wrote: >> Hello all, >> >> I’ve attached below an updated draft charter which addresses the concerns I >> raised previously, especially with regards to section 4.2.3. There are >> additionally changes seeking to address Tim and Ryan’s comments/responses >> below and a few minor updates that seemed warranted as I went through >> another comprehensive review of the document. For each area changed, there >> is a corresponding comment; if anything is unclear, please let me know and >> I’d be happy to address. >> >> Thank you for your patience and understanding in getting this back to the >> group. Have a great evening! >> -Clint >> >> >> >>> On Feb 18, 2020, at 1:57 PM, Ryan Sleevi via Public <public@cabforum.org >>> <mailto:public@cabforum.org>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 1:57 PM Tim Hollebeek via Public >>> <public@cabforum.org <mailto:public@cabforum.org>> wrote: >>> Automatic cessation of membership >>> The balloted wording around software update cadences introduces some >>> precision/definition issues that would likely prove troublesome in and of >>> themselves. >>> While some of those issues could be addressed through wordsmithing, the >>> entire precept that membership may be automatically removed based on >>> various conditions (both for Certificate Consumers and Issuers) is itself >>> problematic and I think an area rife for improvement (both here and in >>> other charters). >>> REJECT: The language is consistent with the language in the other working >>> group charters. Introducing new inconsistencies in this charter would be >>> confusing for all involved. If Apple believes these provisions are >>> problematic, potential improvements should be discussed an applied across >>> all chartered working groups. >>> >>> >>> I'm not quite sure I understand this rationale, could you explain more. >>> >>> Why does this charter need to follow the SCWG/CSWG charter? Who is "all >>> involved" that would be confused? >>> >>> It seems very valuable to learn from mistakes and concerns and address >>> them, but perhaps I'm overlooking something? >>> >>> Invalid membership requirements/processes >>> I think Ryan Sleevi has explained most of this better than I could, so I’ll >>> refer to his message instead: >>> https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2020-February/014874.html >>> <https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2020-February/014874.html>. >>> I looked, but failed to find information as to how mail transfer agents >>> consume S/MIME certificates. However, since it’s included in the ballot I >>> can only conclude that the proposer has relevant and detailed insight into >>> how and why this is a valid categorization for Certificate Consumers and >>> had hoped to be pointed to that information so as to better understand the >>> scope of this proposed CWG. >>> REJECT: This was discussed extensively during the governance reform >>> process, and the current procedures were deemed to be sufficient. This >>> charter simply follows those precedents. Indeed, two other chartered >>> working groups were successfully bootstrapped already. >>> >>> >>> I understand one group was the Code Signing Working Group, which perhaps >>> did not have careful or close review from all Forum members due to the >>> explicit lack of intent to participate in the venue or fundamental >>> disagreements about the working group objectives. >>> >>> However, I'm not sure, what's the other Chartered Working Group you're >>> thinking of? The SCWG explicitly did not follow this process, as part of >>> the Legacy Working Group transition, and so I'm not sure what the other CWG >>> is that avoided this? >>> >>> Also, while I agree that this was discussed extensively, I must >>> respectfully disagree that the "current procedures were deemed to be >>> sufficient". The current (proposed) procedures were known to be problematic >>> in bootstrapping, something we discussed, and something we knew we could >>> avoid by defining an open and welcoming charter. This WG does not seem to >>> set out to do this. >>> >>> In all fairness, this seems a repeat of the same issues the bedeviled, and >>> nearly derailed, the Forum in it's first start. The attempt to exclude some >>> CAs, via narrowly and restrictively scoped membership, nearly resulted in >>> the implosion of the Forum, as the management@ archives from 2009 show. >>> Ultimately, it was the Forum's rejection of such exclusionary attempts that >>> helped grow the membership. In particular, it was DigiCert who some were >>> trying to prevent from joining the Forum, so it would be unfortunate to >>> have DigiCert repeat that same process. >>> >>> I'm hoping you're open to addressing these issues, but I don't think we can >>> support the charter without this issue being addressed. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Public mailing list >>> Public@cabforum.org <mailto:Public@cabforum.org> >>> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public >>> <https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Public mailing list > Public@cabforum.org <mailto:Public@cabforum.org> > https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public > <https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public>
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list Public@cabforum.org https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
