[cabfpub] [Ext] Fixup ballot for CAA

Phillip philliph at comodo.com
Wed Jul 12 19:54:55 MST 2017

The reason I would like to avoid that is demarcation between IETF and CABForum. Since it is Prague next week, I can ask the ADs if they have concerns. They may not but if I was them, I would.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi at google.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 1:43 PM
To: philliph at comodo.com; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>
Cc: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] [Ext] Fixup ballot for CAA

Is there a reason not to simply include the errata text as an Appendix to the BRs (thus ensuring the necessary IP protections as well), and then remove that once/if the CAA document is updated?

This seems clearer and with one less dependency - namely, on the CABForum website.

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 1:30 PM, philliph--- via Public <public at cabforum.org> wrote:
> So to close on this, I suggest the following that I think meets the 
> points raised by both Paul and myself which I think are equally valid:
> 1) Reference the IETF Errata in the BR text
> 2) Archive a copy of the errata on the CABForum site
> 3) In the references section of the BR, cite the IETF as the primary 
> source and add a link saying ‘archived on'
> This is the practice in Wikipedia and it does work pretty well. I 
> don’t think this creates any precedents that we might later regret.
> On Jul 11, 2017, at 9:26 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker 
> <phill at hallambaker.com>
> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 11:26 AM, Paul Hoffman via Public 
> <public at cabforum.org> wrote:
>> On Jun 13, 2017, at 8:14 AM, Gervase Markham via Public 
>> <public at cabforum.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > On 13/06/17 15:33, Phillip via Public wrote:
>> >> I do not see a good argument for including the text in the BR and 
>> >> a good reason not to.
>> >
>> > Well, you may not consider it a good argument, but the 
>> > recommendation of ICANN's Principal Technologist is certainly _an_ argument.
>> This has nothing to do with ICANN, just the IETF. Phill and I each 
>> have decades of experience with the IETF processes and their evolution.
>> >> One of the things that we have attempted to maintain is a 
>> >> separation of concerns between CABForum and IETF so that CABForum 
>> >> does not do protocol and IETF does not do policy.
>> >
>> > Quite so. CAB Forum should not try and define what the erratum says.
>> > This is merely a question of the best way to reference a stable 
>> > piece of text.
>> Exactly. Phill is saying that he believes that the text in an erratum 
>> is stable, and I'm saying that I hope it is true but wouldn't trust 
>> that. To make it clearer, you could put the text in the BR saying 
>> "this text matches Erratum 5029 to RFC 6844 at the time this revision is published".
>> Note that Erratum 5029 has not yet been accepted by the IETF. It and 
>> the other two submitted by Phill are still in the "Reported" state, 
>> not "Held for Document Update". See 
>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6844&rec_status=15&
>> presentation=table>
>> for the status.
>> --Paul Hoffman
>> _______________________________________________
>> Public mailing list
>> Public at cabforum.org
>> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
> _______________________________________________
> Public mailing list
> Public at cabforum.org
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public

More information about the Public mailing list