On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 4:50 PM, Ryan Sleevi <[email protected]> wrote:
> It's unclear whether you disagree with the substance of my analysis, and > are thus stating it was intentional to weaken the Baseline Requirements, or > if you're simply providing clarification for the intent, for which the > weakening of the Baseline Requirements was unintentional? > > If this was unintentional, we can work to resolve this in a way that > achieves the intended resolve. However, if this was intentional, we will > continue to disagree, and thus will find it necessary to vote against this > ballot. I can only hope that, like Ballot 188, this was merely an > unintentional side-effect, and hopefully one we can resolve through > collaboration. > In the ever-optimistic hope that such issues were unintentional, I have created five new threads to discuss distinct and specific issues with this proposal, in the hopes of sparking solutions. My hope is that we might find an acceptable and realistic compromise on solely focusing on the certificate lifetime, and thus nimbly sidestep such other issues until we have the opportunity to discuss further in person. I have focused only on the Baseline Requirements, as it is the only document meaningful for discussions of online security. Given the issues present, it would not be surprising to find similar issues with the proposed modifications for the EVGL, but I'm sure members would find such discussions as exhausting as I do, given the many issues I've raised.
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
