[cabfpub] Potential F2F Topics

Dean Coclin Dean_Coclin at symantec.com
Mon Oct 3 19:16:41 UTC 2016

IPR is topic 13 on the agenda.

CAA has been added. I put your name and Rick's on the list as discussion leaders. 

Google CT can be discussed in their browser update.

Regarding Li-Chun's proposed topic on browser UIs, I'd let him present what he has to say before passing judgement.


-----Original Message-----
From: public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Gervase Markham
Sent: Monday, October 03, 2016 10:26 AM
To: CABFPub <public at cabforum.org>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Potential F2F Topics

On 01/10/16 17:00, Peter Bowen wrote:
> I haven’t seen much recent activity on topics for the F2F.  It looks 
> like we still have most of the second day with placeholders to be 
> filled in.

I would like to discuss the following topics:

1) IPR process. Is there any appetite in the Forum for changing the IPR rules to allow post-vote review (and, if the review turns up something, having the ballot be put in abeyance) rather than the current pre-vote review? I feel this would make the work of the Forum proceed much faster (as IPR review can happen in parallel with CAs preparing to implement the change), and it optimises for the common case, which is that no IPR declarations are filed.

This could be discussed in the IPR WG but perhaps it would be better discussed in the whole forum to see if there was sufficient interest in making this change. Perhaps members could consult their legal counsel before the meeting to see what issues this might raise and how they could be solved.

2) CAA. Again. I think that we need to get to a place where we decide to have a ballot on CAA, and it should be the ballot with the greatest chance of passing. If it fails, it fails, but at the moment we just keep revisiting the issue and having to have the discussion again from scratch. So I'd like to have some time with the explicit goal of working out what form of CAA ballot is most likely to command the support of the forum. (TBH, if only 20 sites in the Alexa top 1M are using it, I doubt any CA should worry that it will end up being a restraint of trade!)

3) I'd like to hear from Google if they have any update on the timing of their plans for requiring CT in other parts of the ecosystem. As they are the ones running a large proportion of the servers, and whose browser has the most advanced implementation, we expect them to be the first to make such a requirement. I'd also, for my own interest, love to hear about their and others' experiences running CT logs, how difficult it has proved to be in practice to run one with 99%+ uptime, whether people are meeting various performance criteria and so on.

Of course, saying I'd like these matters discussed doesn't necessarily mean I'm the right person to be responsible for the discussion. I'd be happy to lead 1), but 2) and 3) would be someone else.

It's good that we now have an established practice of nominating discussion leaders for each slot. It would be good if the discussion leader for each slot could, _before_ we assemble, state in a couple of sentences what the goal of that slot is. If the chairman could perhaps try and elicit such statements from the relevant people, I feel sure that would enhance our efficiency.

I would also note that there is currently an item on the agenda "Potential change to browser UI for Subject DN". It is a long-accepted truth that the CAB Forum does not place requirements on browser UI. It may be worth making that clear again now, so that we can use that time for other items.


Public mailing list
Public at cabforum.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5723 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20161003/cd1fe017/attachment-0001.p7s>

More information about the Public mailing list