[cabf_validation] [cabfPAG] Function of the PAG

[kirk_hall at trendmicro.com]

I stand corrected on Ben’s not sharing the draft with the VWG – I hadn’t looked at it closely.  I apologize, Ben – but I don’t think the changes you are proposing make are an improvement over the current format of clearly enumerated validation methods, which we can discuss on Thursday’s call.

I asked Richard for an example of the new format for domain validation he wanted (general concept with an example), as I have doubts about whether it can be audited by WebTrust auditors (they can’t deal very well with auditing general concepts, and strongly prefer specifics instead for auditing purposes).  That is still an open issue, and something I suggested we should first review with Don Sheehy and the other WebTrust representatives to the Forum

In any case, the purpose of the PAG is to examine final ballot proposals and actual adopted BRs and EVGLs against patents which have been disclosed, so I think this discussion goes beyond the ambit of the PAG.

From: Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi at google.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 6:59 PM
To: Kirk Hall (RD-US)
Cc: pag at cabforum.org; CABFPub; validation at cabforum.org
Subject: Re: [cabfPAG] Function of the PAG



On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 6:55 PM, kirk_hall at trendmicro.com<mailto:kirk_hall at trendmicro.com> <kirk_hall at trendmicro.com<mailto:kirk_hall at trendmicro.com>> wrote:
Actually, the list-serv is a great place to clarify any confusion, as all members are included.  What inaccurate conclusions did I draw?

Again, I’m extremely surprised that Ben’s new draft has not been distributed yet to the Validation Working Group, but was sent to the PAG instead.  Ben, can you clarify?


Among others, that Ben hadn't circulated the draft, which isn't true.

You can see Ben's email to the validation WG - https://cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/2015-July/000079.html - circulating this draft. It was in response to Richard Barnes' remark, at https://cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/2015-July/000076.html , which you replied to expressing a desire to better understand how it might look - https://cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/2015-July/000077.html - which Ben has thus provided.

As towards the inaccurate conclusions of the PAG, I'm not sure where to begin, but it would help I think to wait for the minutes, as well as the draft attempt at the scope of the PAG. Among other things discussed on the call you were unable to attend, but which will be reflected in the minutes, is the desire to avoid the specific enumeration of IPR and instead focus on understanding the applicability of the IPR policy's definition of Essential Claims as it applies to such enumerations as 3.2.2.4.

<table class="TM_EMAIL_NOTICE"><tr><td><pre>
TREND MICRO EMAIL NOTICE
The information contained in this email and any attachments is confidential 
and may be subject to copyright or other intellectual property protection. 
If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to use or 
disclose this information, and we request that you notify us by reply mail or
telephone and delete the original message from your mail system.
</pre></td></tr></table>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/attachments/20150729/2063f8b1/attachment-0001.html