[cabfpub] Notes of Meeting, CAB Forum, 22 August 2013

Mon Sep 9 13:23:55 UTC 2013

They had observer status in the CABF from 2007 but didn’t participate
after November 2011 when John Harris left Adobe.  I don’t think they
signed the IPR agreement.

Regards
Robin Alden

Comodo

From: public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org]
On Behalf Of i-barreira at izenpe.net
Sent: 09 September 2013 12:11
To: ben at digicert.com; public at cabforum.org
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Notes of Meeting, CAB Forum, 22 August 2013

Regarding Item 6, I was asked time ago (maybe long time ago) by Adobe to
incorporate in the CABF albeit they are not a browser but run their own
root program

Iñigo Barreira
Responsable del Área técnica
i-barreira at izenpe.net

945067705

Descripción: cid:image001.png at 01CE3152.B4804EB0

ERNE! Baliteke mezu honen zatiren bat edo mezu osoa legez babestuta
egotea. Mezua badu bere hartzailea. Okerreko helbidera heldu bada
(helbidea gaizki idatzi, transmisioak huts egin) eman abisu igorleari,
korreo honi erantzuna. KONTUZ!
ATENCION! Este mensaje contiene informacion privilegiada o confidencial
a la que solo tiene derecho a acceder el destinatario. Si usted lo
recibe por error le agradeceriamos que no hiciera uso de la informacion
y que se pusiese en contacto con el remitente.

De: public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] En
nombre de Ben Wilson
Enviado el: sábado, 07 de septiembre de 2013 1:20
Para: public at cabforum.org
Asunto: [cabfpub] Notes of Meeting, CAB Forum, 22 August 2013

Here are the minutes from the penultimate CAB Forum telephone call.

Notes of meeting

CAB Forum 

22 August 2013

Version 1

1.  Present:   Dean Coclin, Atsushi Inaba, Ben Wilson, Mads Henriksveen,
Sissel Hoel, Kirk Hall, Eddy Nigg, Atilla Biler, Mert Ozarar, Rick
Andrews, Geoff Keating, Gerv Markham, Stephen Davidson, Wayne Thayer 

2.  Agenda review:  Approved as published.  

3.  Minutes:   The minutes of August 8, 2013, were approved as
published.  

4.  Ballots:  No ballot voting processes are pending.  However, the
following ballots are being revised and will be re-presented for voting:
Ballot 89 (EV Processing Recommendations), 103 (clarification on OCSP
Stapling), 107 (removal of specific version numbers and URLs), and 108
(definition of SSL certificate scope). 

On Ballot 89, Wayne will be asked to remove the old version of the EV
Processing Guidelines and Rick will update the EV Processing
Recommendations this week.  Kirk and Ben have said that they will
endorse the ballot.  

Mads said that after reading the minutes from the last meeting he is
unclear about the ballot process and what his responsibility should be
as the proponent of the ballot.  Ben said he understood this confusion
due to the way we pulled Ballot 107 out of voting.  Kirk said his
comments during the last meeting about inadequate preparation of ballots
were directed more at complicated changes to guidelines and not
necessarily simple changes to cross-references.  Ben said that Ballot
107 faced several minor comments which we were not able to get resolved
to people’s satisfaction before the time came to start voting and that
is why we pulled it rather than follow some other course of action.
Ben, Mads, Kirk and Iñigo will circulate and discuss a revised Ballot
107 offline before bringing it back for vote. 

5.  Announcements:   The EV Guideline Revisions Working Group will begin
meeting every other week, starting next Thursday, 29-Aug at 1600UTC, on
a schedule that alternates opposite to this meeting .  It was suggested
that this be announced by email.  The group will take a comprehensive
look at the EV Guidelines since it has been 5 years since they were
created.  The group will perform a high-level review the EVGs and make
suggestions about what ought to be changed.  After an initial body of
work has been done by the working group, they will report back and
invite comments from others and from interested parties who are not
members of the CA/Browser Forum.    Ben also announced that Tim Moses
was back from sick-leave and that it looked like the pace of work WPKOPS
in IETF would pick up again.

Atilla asked about which working groups were still active.  Dean said
that we have the Code Signing working group, the Revocation working
group, and the EV Guidelines working group.  It was suggested that we
list those working groups on the website or wiki.  We should also plan
that the working group meetings on Tuesday Sept. 24 (prior to the
plenary face-to-face in Ankara) will take more than just a  half day as
it has in the past.  It was suggested that Code Signing and EV Guideline
working groups each take 3 hours.  The Revocation working group will not
likely need even one hour on Tuesday.   Atilla and Mert need to have a
count for the number of people who will be in attendance during
Tuesday’s working group sessions (as well as for the entire F2F meetings
on Wednesday and Thursday).

6. Review recent inquiries about joining CABF and levels of engagement
with CABF-recognized liaisons/ interested parties:  Dean mentioned he
was drafting a welcome page for the web site to introduce new members.
Recently we’ve been contacted by:  Disig (Slovakia), Firma Profesional
(Spain), WoSign (China), První CA (Czech), AS Sertifitseerimiskeskus
(Estonia), OATI (US), and others.  He will complete the welcome message
for the website when the more recent applicants have been squared away.

The role and privileges of non-member interested parties was discussed
in relation to our liaison relationship with ICANN.   Kirk explained
that the early drafts of the bylaws mentioned “observer” status.  The
bylaws that were adopted use the term “interested parties”.   The bylaws
say that interested parties may be invited to participate in working
groups related to their areas of expertise.  Kirk asked whether the
scope of ICANN’s interest was limited.  He also noted that allowing a
multitude of interested parties to participate in meeting discussions
would create an unmanageable situation.  Eddy said that that
collaboration and communication between ICANN and the CA/Browser Forum
is very important.  Also, the ICANN relationship is unique, so we
shouldn’t define a limited scope to their involvement because unlike
others, ICANN’s interest in what we do is likely to be broad.  Ben said
that the key distinction between members and interested parties when it
comes to participation is that interested parties do not have voting
rights.  Still, he needed some direction from the group on two key areas
-- wiki access and the management mailing list because if an interested
party is involved, then they need to know more details about meetings.
Dean asked and Ben confirmed that ICANN had signed the IPR policy.   In
conclusion, it was generally agreed that ICANN is a special case and
that for any other potential interested party that we discuss we need to
conduct a careful review of their anticipated scope of participation and
each time it will need to be done on an ad-hoc / case-by-case basis.  

Rick noted that the discussion reminded him that Oracle is getting
closer to making an application for membership as a browser.  Ben noted
that the bylaws define “browser” as a provider of software with browsing
capability, so we might need to revise the definition of “browser” even
if we do not change the term.  He also noted that we have discussed in
the past whether we need to rename our organization to something else.
He also said that we ought to make the change to our bylaws before
Oracle submits its application, if we can, and that we have previously
drafted language that would resolve this issue. 

7.  Agenda planning for F2F meeting in Ankara: - Atilla and Mert
announced that approximately 13 people have RSVP’d.  Once they have the
number of attendees,  they can finalize hotel, meeting space, dinner,
and travel arrangements.  Then they will send out another announcement
during the first of next week.  Ben said he would send out an email
reminding people that they need to RSVP.   Ben will also put a draft
agenda up on the wiki or on a Google spreadsheet.

8.  Review status of website revisions:  Not discussed.

9.  Any Other Business:  None.

10. Next phone calls:   It was agreed that we should have two more calls
before the face-to-face - Thurs. Sept. 5th and Thurs. Sept. 19th so that
we can communicate any last minute instructions before the face-to-face.

11.  Meeting adjourned.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20130909/f3184a50/attachment-0003.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 19121 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20130909/f3184a50/attachment-0003.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5246 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20130909/f3184a50/attachment-0001.p7s>