Re: [Cscwg-public] Proposed Signing Service, High Risk and Timestamp Changes

What "current timestamping BRs" are you referring to? As I said, timestamping strictly related to code signing should be in scope. Dean Dean Coclin Sr. Director Business Development M 1.781.789.8686 From: Tim Hollebeek Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 8:27 PM To: Dean

Re: [Cscwg-public] Proposed Signing Service, High Risk and Timestamp Changes

Makes sense. The CWG has the first say in its own Charter. Thanks, Dimitris. On 13/9/2023 12:11 μ.μ., Martijn Katerbarg wrote: So while updating the charter really is something for the Forum level (ping @Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) ), I would be inclined to

Re: [Cscwg-public] Proposed Signing Service, High Risk and Timestamp Changes

So while updating the charter really is something for the Forum level (ping @Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) ), I would be inclined to say that a first update draft could be floated in the CSWG mailing list for feedback. Any objections? I’ll start working on a

Re: [Cscwg-public] Proposed Signing Service, High Risk and Timestamp Changes

That’s what we’ve been doing with the server cert charter (discuss on the server list, with intent to vote on forum list), so there’s precedent. I think that’s what we’ve always done before, too. -Tim From: Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 5:38 AM