[cabfpub] Ballot 213 - Revocation Timeline Extension

[Ryan Sleevi]

Jeremy,

To be clear: The suggestion is to simply setup an additional mailing list
for this.

Advantages:
- No vendor dependency (the Mozilla list is, of course, simply one root
store member)
- An auditable criteria (whether or not a message was posted is something
that can be quantified without an external dependency)
- Objective transparency without a vendor dependence
- Avoids requiring the high-volume subscription to the Mozilla list to
understand the challenges there are with processing revocations in a timely
fashion, so that the Forum can best review and update its expectations

Given that this is an exceptional process, it's one we can expect to be
extremely low volume, but when there is volume, it will hopefully be of
substantive quality.

The objections I've heard are:
- Objections to the notion of transparency itself
- Concerns about messages requiring moderation (not an issue for the
questions@ list, AIUI, so one would similarly expect the same)
- Concerns about administrative overhead (Mailman supports self-service
subscription - as evidenced by the public@ list - and allows public posting
- as evidenced by the questions@ list)
- Concerns about spam (not an issue for the questions@ list, AIUI, so one
would similarly expect the same)
- Concerns about vendor dependence (having this be a Forum list resolves
this)
- Concerns about "The Forum" running a list ("The Forum" already runs
several lists, as per our bylaws)

I am earnestly surprised by the degree of concern here, and am trying to
make a good faith understanding of the concerns, which do not seem to be
well-founded, but I may simply be misunderstanding the concerns.

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 1:31 PM, Jeremy Rowley <jeremy.rowley at digicert.com>
wrote:

> I still don’t see the value of bastardizing the CAB Forum questions list
> to do something that the Mozilla mailing list already does perfectly.  Why
> use a brand new process when a good one already exists?  Unless, there’s a
> good reason for double transparency (Mozilla plus a new mailing list) I’d
> like to keep the ballot as already proposed if people are willing to
> endorse.
>
>
>
> *From:* Public [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] *On Behalf Of *Dean
> Coclin via Public
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 11, 2017 11:18 AM
> *To:* Wayne Thayer <wthayer at godaddy.com>; CA/Browser Forum Public
> Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>; Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com>;
> Gervase Markham <gerv at mozilla.org>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 213 - Revocation Timeline Extension
>
>
>
> I’m currently responding to questions as best I can. We haven’t had much
> volume on that list though.
>
>
> Dean
>
>
>
> *From:* Public [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org
> <public-bounces at cabforum.org>] *On Behalf Of *Wayne Thayer via Public
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 11, 2017 1:16 PM
> *To:* Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com>; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion
> List <public at cabforum.org>; Gervase Markham <gerv at mozilla.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 213 - Revocation Timeline Extension
>
>
>
> >>I do not believe that's not been a concern of any Forum mailing list to
> date, because that's now how the Forum has operated its mailing lists.
>
>
>
> This is precisely how the Forum operates its lists – questions@ in
> particular, but all the others as well. And while Eddy Nigg was the
> long-time questions@ list admin, there is currently no one who really
> owns the task of monitoring the questions list in a timely fashion (and I
> suspect that timely moderation is quite important for this new list that’s
> being proposed). I am currently doing a lot of the moderation but am
> transitioning the work to Ben, which I believe supports the point that Gerv
> is making.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Wayne
>
>
>
> *From: *Public <public-bounces at cabforum.org> on behalf of Ryan Sleevi via
> Public <public at cabforum.org>
> *Reply-To: *Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com>, CA/Browser Forum Public
> Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>
> *Date: *Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 9:54 AM
> *To: *Gervase Markham <gerv at mozilla.org>
> *Cc: *CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 213 - Revocation Timeline Extension
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 12:42 PM, Gervase Markham <gerv at mozilla.org>
> wrote:
>
> On 11/10/17 17:39, Ryan Sleevi wrote:
> > What do you believe requires looking after? Spam? Substance? Access?
>
> Mailing lists don't manage themselves. Says someone who manages six and
> has to clear the spam queues daily.
>
>
>
> So your concern is a message being held for moderation and requiring
> manual review?
>
>
>
> I do not believe that's not been a concern of any Forum mailing list to
> date, because that's now how the Forum has operated its mailing lists.
>
>
>
> Would that address your concern?
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20171011/21f38a8c/attachment-0003.html>