TrustCor votes to abstain on Ballot Forum-11.
TrustCor does not oppose the establishment of a working group to examine
the requirements for a solid S/MIME foundation, but the current
discussions have indicated that there is no likelihood for consensus on
the current path, despite the sterling
; Clint Wilson
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot Forum-11: Creation of S/MIME Certificates Working
Group
Ryan - Thank you for pointing out the past discussions. it's unfortunate that
this ballot has lingered for so long and as a result it's possible that some of
your feedback from a year ago
) ; CABforum1
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot Forum-11: Creation of S/MIME Certificates Working
Group
Thanks Dimitris.
On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 11:09 PM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) via Public
mailto:public@cabforum.org> > wrote:
Tim, Wayne, Adriano,
Apple made a contri
The intent, stated in London, Cupertino, and Shanghai, is that much like
other Subject information in leaf certificates does not have explicit
guidelines (other than the CA validates), that the same approach would be
valid for S/MIME
On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 2:46 AM Adriano Santoni via Public <
I would still prefer identity information (natural person or legal
entity, or both: natural person affiliated to a legal entity) to be
expressly included in the WG scope since the beginning. Of course this
makes the WG task (that of producing "S/MIME baseline requirements")
harder and longer,
On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 2:37 PM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) <
dzach...@harica.gr> wrote:
>
> This was not raised as an issue when the code signing WG was created.
>
That doesn't mean it's not an issue? It just means y'all may not have had
folks review it closely?
> During the kick-off
On 2020-02-06 9:25 μ.μ., Ryan Sleevi via Public wrote:
[...]
* Regarding membership, you also commented "There's also a
bootstrapping issue for membership, in that until we know who the
accepted Certificate Consumers are, no CA can join as a
Certificate Issuer. I'm curious
On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 2:05 PM Wayne Thayer wrote:
> Ryan - Thank you for pointing out the past discussions. it's unfortunate
> that this ballot has lingered for so long and as a result it's possible
> that some of your feedback from a year ago was (unintentionally, I believe)
> "ignored". In
Ryan - Thank you for pointing out the past discussions. it's unfortunate
that this ballot has lingered for so long and as a result it's possible
that some of your feedback from a year ago was (unintentionally, I believe)
"ignored". In reviewing [12], I observe the following:
* As noted, most, but
Thanks Dimitris.
On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 11:09 PM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) via Public <
public@cabforum.org> wrote:
> Tim, Wayne, Adriano,
>
> Apple made a contribution and although HARICA disagrees with most of the
> recommended changes I believe there should be some discussion around
Tim, Wayne, Adriano,
Apple made a contribution and although HARICA disagrees with most of the
recommended changes I believe there should be some discussion around
that. Unfortunately, although I had started working on a response, I
didn't have time to complete it on time. I was hoping to see
Just to make sure the timing is accurate:
2018-05 - Tim Hollebeek circulates a draft charter, largely modeled after
the code signing charter [1].
2018-06 - F2F 44 provides significant discussion on this issue and the
potential concerns. [2]
2018-07 - Ballot 208 [3] is finalized, which sets forth
Based on my recollection of the Guangzhou discussion, and supported by the
minutes, the "path forward agreed to in Guangzhou" was that we would take
this charter to a ballot without further attempts to resolve the issue of
including identity in the charter's scope. There does not appear to be a
Hi Tim,
Could you point to where that's reflected in the minutes? Our understanding
here at Google is that Apple's proposed changes, which we support and would
be unable to participate without incorporating, is that it accurately and
correctly reflects the discussions in London [1], reiterated in
Thanks for this, but this is fundamentally incompatible with the path forward
we agreed to in Guangzhou.
-Tim
From: cli...@apple.com On Behalf Of Clint Wilson
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2020 7:53 PM
To: Tim Hollebeek ; CABforum1
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot Forum-11: Creation of S/MIME
Hi all,I apologize for not getting this feedback in prior to the end of the Discussion period. I’ve attached a redlined document with comments and proposed changes (though I didn’t update the format to follow the template in the Bylaws). I hope this feedback can still be considered prior to the
Hi Tim,
Is there a reason this doesn't follow the template in Exhibit C of our
Bylaws? The differences seem rather significant.
On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 2:39 PM Tim Hollebeek via Public <
public@cabforum.org> wrote:
>
>
> The following ballot is proposed by Tim Hollebeek of DigiCert and endorsed
The following ballot is proposed by Tim Hollebeek of DigiCert and endorsed
by Wayne Thayer of Mozilla and Adriano Santoni of Actalis.
Ballot Forum-11: Creation of S/MIME Certificates Working Group
Purpose of the Ballot
The CA/Browser Forum recently underwent a two-year long
18 matches
Mail list logo
