[cabfpub] Ballot 188 - Clarify use of term "CA" in Baseline Requirements

[Doug Beattie]

GlobalSign also changes their vote to NO because of the newly identified issues.

Doug

 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Public [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Gervase
> Markham via Public
> Sent: Wednesday, March 1, 2017 11:08 AM
> To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>; Ryan
> Sleevi <sleevi at google.com>
> Cc: Gervase Markham <gerv at mozilla.org>
> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 188 - Clarify use of term "CA" in Baseline
> Requirements
> 
> On 01/03/17 07:02, Dimitris Zacharopoulos via Public wrote:
> > I can't imagine that Mozilla, Entrust, Globalsign, Digicert (that
> > already voted "Yes") didn't read through the ballot and didn't
> > consider these misunderstandings.
> 
> Your confidence in me is heartwarming :-), but sadly misplaced. I didn't
> notice the issues which Ryan and Peter have raised, but having reread this
> thread fairly carefully, I can see that they have a point.
> Particularly about the OCSP/"good" thing, which seems like a serious bug.
> 
> I hope that you won't see it as a denigration of your hard work on this ballot,
> but I'm afraid we have to change our vote.
> 
> Mozilla now votes NO.
> 
> I would like to make a concrete suggestion as to the way forward. It seems to
> me like this very important task of fixing the BRs and other documents to
> have consistent language falls into two parts:
> 
> a) making a sane and consistent set of definitions; and
> b) making the document use them consistently.
> 
> Might it make sense to do a) as the full Forum, and get agreement on the
> definition set, before re-attempting b)? And when b) is re-attempted, we
> may find that it's impossible in some cases to express what the BRs currently
> say using the sane and consistent set of definitions created in a). This is likely
> to be a bug in the BRs. We can then decide on a case-by-case basis whether
> to craft "custom language" to keep the bug and fix it later, or have the ballot
> fix the bug as well as fixing the language.
> 
> It may actually be that the work of a) turns into an RFC 7719-like document
> for the WebPKI.
> 
> Gerv
> _______________________________________________
> 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