[cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: Ballot 190 - Recording BR Version Number

Ryan Sleevi sleevi at google.com
Mon Jul 24 19:20:26 UTC 2017


I'm not sure I understand why you're so casually dismissing feedback -
since you responded to it and seemingly agreed with it. You agree
there's potential for confusion. You agree there's potential for
issues getting out of consistency. These represent real issues. You
have not provided a way to address them.

You took this feedback, and reframed a question from a very specific,
actionable piece of information - why is this not sufficient and how
can it be better - into something devoid of content or agency -
'should we do better' - which is entirely unhelpful and unproductive.

I'm trying to focus on concrete problems CAs face, and understanding
those problems before advocating solutions. You're advocating a
particular solution, without a clear problem statement or a way to
measure how this helps for CAs.

This is a philosophical approach to gathering feedback, and one that's
been raised several times in the past as a concern, so it should be no

On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 3:14 PM, Kirk Hall
<Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com> wrote:
> Ryan, you seem passionate about this - why?
> Wayne suggested some sort of help for CAs to make sure they knew when each validation method was most recently updated could be useful, and I volunteered to make a table.  If CAs want to do this, we will -- it causes no harm to Google, and your strong objections are not really helpful or easy to comprehend.  I don't think there is anything further to discuss or debate.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi at google.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:45 AM
> To: Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>
> Cc: Ben Wilson <ben.wilson at digicert.com>; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>
> Subject: [EXTERNAL]Re: Ballot 190 - Recording BR Version Number
> On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 2:22 PM, Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com> wrote:
>> I don't agree that CAs would be insulted -- legislatures around the world regularly create and publish tables showing when each section of a statutory code (read: BR Sections) was last amended, and by what public law (read: Ballot) - it can be a useful reference.
>> But I do agree with you we wouldn't want tables, etc. to get out of sync.  This topic came up originally because of something Wayne posted - let's just wait a bit and see if CAs in the Forum feel a table would or would not be useful in keeping up with changes and knowing what the latest version of each validation rule is.
> I appreciate you restating the original question, but that unfortunately dismisses the concerns and criticisms I raised.
> Perhaps it would be more useful and productive if CAs in the Forum feel that Sections 1.2.1 and 1.2.2 are lacking, and, if so, in what aspects, so that we can propose solutions that respond to the actual problems identified, rather than hypothetical ones.

More information about the Public mailing list