On 20/12/2018 16:48, Paul Hoffman wrote: > <decloaking for a moment of IETF process discussion> > >> On Dec 20, 2018, at 8:32 AM, Rob Stradling via Servercert-wg >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Sectigo votes NO. >> >> We don't object to the idea behind this ballot, and we don't have any >> specific objections to the content of this ballot either. However, the >> IETF has a process for defining new CAA properties, and this process >> needs to be followed. >> >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6844#section-7.2 says: >> "Addition of tag identifiers requires a public specification and >> Expert Review as set out in [RFC6195], Section 3.1.1." >> >> The BRs is a "public specification", certainly. However, *before* the >> new CAA property proposed by this ballot can become enshrined as a >> requirement in the BRs: >> 1. An application for "Expert Review" must be submitted >> and >> 2. An "approved" response from the designated Expert must be received >> >> Since IANA has not yet assigned any Expert(s) to the caa-properties >> registry [1], it's clear that the required "Expert Review" has not yet >> occurred. >> >> >> [1] >> https://www.iana.org/assignments/pkix-parameters/pkix-parameters.xhtml#caa-properties > > It is worthwhile noting the paragraph of RFC 6844 immediately after the one > quoted above: > > The tag space is designed to be sufficiently large that exhausting > the possible tag space need not be a concern. The scope of Expert > Review SHOULD be limited to the question of whether the specification > provided is sufficiently clear to permit implementation and to avoid > unnecessary duplication of functionality. > > Even though there is not yet an expert reviewer (which is odd, given that > they've had almost six years to make that assignment), this text makes it > sound like the registration in this ballot would very likely be accepted, and > if it wasn't, an appeal would almost certainly win.
Nonetheless, rules are rules. I'd like to avoid setting a precedent of CABForum disregarding applicable IETF rules for no good reason. > If this ballot passes, someone from CABForum should send a message to the > IESG saying "there was no reviewer, we added a property that we think meets > the requirements, and as soon as you assign an expert reviewer (cough cough) > we will submit this to the registry". -- Rob Stradling Senior Research & Development Scientist Sectigo Limited _______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
