[cabfpub] Ballot 185 (Revised) - Limiting the Lifetime of Certificates

[Wayne Thayer]

From: Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi at google.com]


On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Wayne Thayer via Public <public at cabforum.org<mailto:public at cabforum.org>> wrote:
Our primary reasons for voting against are:

  1.  There was no attempt to build consensus around this ballot. While we recognize that it takes a concrete proposal to spur action, we don’t believe the discussion was constructive or that nearly enough time was allowed to find common ground.
Note: Given that we had no formal measure of consensus, I do hope that GoDaddy doesn't consider the act of trying to measure consensus as being at odds with building consensus. Only by knowing who disagrees, and why, can we work to find a solution that works for the majority.

[WT] It’s fair to say that many, probably most members did not construe this ballot as simply an attempt to measure consensus, so I reject your assertion. And I wouldn’t have listed our concerns if we were opposed to using the ballot to gain insight into the issue.

  1.
  2.  The 6-month deadline in the revised ballot represents consensus on how long CAs should need to implement a change of this sort, but allowing more time for planning can minimize the impact to all involved. For example:

     *   Giving large companies time to plan and budget for better automation or more resources.
     *   Getting the word out to resellers who also need to notify their customers and make changes to their systems.
     *   Allowing CAs time to work with customers to fulfill or modify prior obligations such as enterprise contracts, retail sales of new multi-year certificates, or reissuance of multi-year certificates.
We’d like to understand the specific concerns driving the tight timeline and weigh them against the benefits gained from a moderately later effective date.

Is this a matter of degree (e.g. 3 additional months) or magnitude (e.g. 3 additional years)?

[WT] Something in between 3 months and 3 years. Again, I don’t know if there are specific concerns informing the proposed timing or if it was just Google’s desired outcome.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20170221/b32203ec/attachment-0003.html>