Mozilla changes its vote to "no" on Ballot SC-74 with the understanding
that additional edits are needed.
On Sun, May 5, 2024 at 1:05 PM Ben Wilson wrote:
> Mozilla votes "yes" on Ballot SC-74.
>
> On Sun, May 5, 2024 at 3:06 AM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) via
> Servercert-wg wrote:
>
>>
Mozilla votes "yes" on Ballot SC-74.
On Sun, May 5, 2024 at 3:06 AM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) via
Servercert-wg wrote:
> HARICA votes "yes" to ballot SC-74.
>
> On 5/5/2024 11:24 π.μ., Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) via Servercert-wg
> wrote:
>
> Voting begins for ballot SC-74.
> SC-74 -
e Subscriber and CA
> are parties to a legally valid and enforceable Subscriber Agreement that
> satisfies these Requirements, or, if the CA and Subscriber are the same
> entity or are Affiliated, the Applicant Representative has accepted the
> Subscriber Agreement;
>
>
>
Mozilla votes "yes".
On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 2:00 AM Wayne Thayer via Servercert-wg <
servercert-wg@cabforum.org> wrote:
> Purpose of Ballot SC-073
>
> This ballot proposes updates to the Baseline Requirements for the Issuance
> and Management of Publicly-Trusted TLS Server Certificates related
I removed it because I didn't like the phrasing. I can propose other
wording for an effective date, unless anyone else wants to take a crack at
it.
On Wed, Apr 24, 2024, 1:59 AM Wayne Thayer wrote:
> Thanks Ben!
>
> The second commit you linked removes the effective date for CP/CPS updates
>
Dimitris, Aaron, Wayne, and Others,
We are working on improving the language of the ballot.
Here are a couple of versions for you to review and provide feedback on.
https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/commit/d0d962e04bd81a71ebf71a7c45a015cbc75ac979
All,
I would like to help start up the patent advisory group. If you are
interested in participating or having your IP counsel involved, please
email me directly.
Thanks,
Ben
On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 3:32 AM Inigo Barreira via Servercert-wg <
servercert-wg@cabforum.org> wrote:
> During the review
Hi Dimitris,
You can add me.
Thanks,
Ben
On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 9:01 AM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) via
Servercert-wg wrote:
>
>
> On 19/3/2024 5:27 π.μ., Corey Bonnell wrote:
>
> Hi Dimitris,
>
> I’d be happy to endorse and help flesh out the language.
>
>
> Thank you Corey, I added your
Greetings Antti,
Somehow, our group (working on the Subscriber Agreement/Terms of Use
ballot) had selected ballot number 67 on the wiki, but there were two
different wiki pages with ballot numbers that people were unaware of (which
led to a second selection of #67 by Chris and Ryan). So Dustin,
Mozilla votes "yes" on Ballot SC-65 - Convert EVGs to RFC 3647 format
On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 8:33 AM Inigo Barreira via Servercert-wg <
servercert-wg@cabforum.org> wrote:
> *Summary: *
>
> The Extended Validation Certificates guidelines (EVGs) were developed and
> written in a specific format.
Mozilla votes "yes" on Ballot SC-69v3 - Clarify router and firewall logging
requirements.
On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 3:59 AM Martijn Katerbarg via Servercert-wg <
servercert-wg@cabforum.org> wrote:
> *Summary: *
>
> This ballot aims to clarify what data needs to be logged as part of the
> "Firewall
Mozilla votes "yes" to Ballot SC-070.
On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 9:56 AM Aaron Gable via Servercert-wg <
servercert-wg@cabforum.org> wrote:
> This new voting period is to fix a typo in the End timestamp of the voting
> period for the previous version of this ballot. The contents of the motion
>
I'm willing to endorse.
On Thu, Feb 8, 2024 at 10:52 AM Inigo Barreira via Servercert-wg <
servercert-wg@cabforum.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>
> As mentioned in the past SCWG call, I´m looking for 2 endorsers for this
> ballot.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> *De:* Servercert-wg *En nombre de *Inigo
>
Mozilla votes "Yes" to Ballot SC-68.
On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 2:00 AM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) via
Servercert-wg wrote:
> This email initiates the voting period for ballot SC-68. Please vote.
>
>
> Purpose of the Ballot
>
> The EV Guidelines have strict rules in the organizationIdentifier
I think this is listed as an issue in GitHub -
https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/issues/444.
On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 4:54 AM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) via
Servercert-wg wrote:
> Dear Members,
>
> While taking another pass at reviewing the new certificate profiles
> introduced in
All,
See
https://github.com/BenWilson-Mozilla/pkipolicy/commit/1a94642cb95017cf382e4e93811db16a2342a806.
This proposed change was to clarify that the outline in section 6 of RFC
3647 is what is intended to be followed in CPs and CPSes, and not some
other outline found in RFC 3647. Unfortunately,
Just inside lines 276-279, I suggest we replace "Applicant" with
"Applicant/Subscriber" so it would read:
**Applicant/Subscriber Representative**: A natural person or human sponsor
who is either the Applicant/Subscriber, employed by the
Applicant/Subscriber, or an authorized agent who has express
All,
Dustin and I made the change suggested by Bruce -
https://github.com/BenWilson-Mozilla/servercert/commit/47423176206cca97eb8d4c3678f65f26f587c3c5
We modified item 4 in BR section 9.6.3, as discussed during the Validation
Subcommittee meeting a few weeks ago:
;> months period to 12, otherwise within a 6 months period there may only be 1
>>>> F2F. Requiring attendance (remote or in-person) if there’s only 1 F2F in
>>>> the time-span, could be hard if there’s a case of bad timing.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>
pan, could be hard if there’s a case of bad timing.
>>
>>
>>
>> Additionally, I’d like to request the addition of an additional criteria
>> (although it’s related to the “publish how it decides to add or remove a CA
>> certificate from its list.” item. I’d like
t;
>
>
> IMHO non-particpants taking part in the democratic process (i.e. voting)
> is just something we have to accept and factor in. It’s one end of the
> extreme spectrum. There might be over-active participants that overwhelm
> the group by pushing their own agenda… If we hav
in order to enable collapsing their use of “Terms
> of Use” into the concept of the “Subscriber Agreement”. Is that an accurate
> description of the intent of this draft? Are there any other goals or
> outcomes being aimed at with these changes?
>
> Thanks!
> -Clint
>
> On
Hi,
Dustin Hollenback and I are looking for another endorser for a proposed
ballot - see
https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/compare/a0360b61e73476959220dc328e3b68d0224fa0b3..663695b8319c0cd32e0060bb9304ecd32e3737a1
It would remove the concept of a separate "Terms of Use" and replace it
with
actor in. It’s one end of the
> extreme spectrum. There might be over-active participants that overwhelm
> the group by pushing their own agenda… If we have minimum participation
> requirements, then we maybe should also have maximum participation rules?
>
>
>
>
> Rgds
> Roman
&
o re-draft a proposal for a revision to the
> Server Certificate WG Charter and present it on the public list (because an
> eventual revision of the Charter will have to take place at the Forum
> level).
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ben
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 9:45 AM Ben
.
At this point, I'm going to re-draft a proposal for a revision to the
Server Certificate WG Charter and present it on the public list (because an
eventual revision of the Charter will have to take place at the Forum
level).
Thanks,
Ben
On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 9:45 AM Ben Wilson via Servercert-wg
let it run in the
> background to “earn the credits”.
>
>
>
> Also, what would happen after the 90 day suspension? Would the
> organization be removed as a CA/B member?
>
>
>
> Rgds
> Roman
>
>
>
> *From:* Servercert-wg *On Behalf Of *Ben
> Wilson via S
27 matches
Mail list logo
