On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 8:02 PM, Eric Mill <[email protected]> wrote: > This ballot (to me, anyway) came out of nowhere without any prior > discussion focused on a potential ballot, and it's a big change from the > status quo on the CA side, so I can understand why it's caused a strong > reaction. >
Just for context, past discussions include https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2016-March/007106.html https://cabforum.org/2016/02/17/2016-02-17-minutes-of-f2f-meeting-37/ https://cabforum.org/2015/10/07/2015-10-07-face-to-face-meeting-minutes-meeting-36-istanbul/#Certificate-Validity-Periods https://cabforum.org/2015/06/24/2015-06-24-face-to-face-meeting-35-minutes/ https://cabforum.org/2013/11/21/2013-11-21-minutes/ https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2013-November/002479.html Basically, the Forum's been talking about it for quite some time. The reactions and responses to Ballot 111 are fairly telling, in that we see many of the same responses from the same members, three years later, and nothing has changed. I realize the proposition of the Ballot itself may be seen as "out of the blue", but the fact how many incidents in 2017 alone where we've discovered new misissuance, or we've discovered audit irregularities, provide ample evidence that the current ecosystem and incentives are not aligned with security. This is but one step in a positive direction.
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
