[cabf_validation] [EXTERNAL] FW: [cabfpub] Draft Agenda for F2F Taipei Oct. 3-5 for review

Kirk Hall Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com
Thu Sep 28 12:51:24 MST 2017

Doug - you are talking about a pending list of Ballot 190 follow-on issues?  Something that also would serve as an Agenda for VWG meetings?  (I'm less clear how it would be used for posting comments.)

Sounds good to me.

I'm still hoping the VWG will list the 10 validation methods and then under each list the most common use cases / processes that are employed for each validation method as a "template" for discussion of changes (like reuse of Random Value, etc.) - I think that will be very efficient, and help avoid inadvertent mistakes.

-----Original Message-----
From: Validation [mailto:validation-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Doug Beattie via Validation
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 6:50 AM
To: validation (validation at cabforum.org) <validation at cabforum.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL][cabf_validation] FW: [cabfpub] Draft Agenda for F2F Taipei Oct. 3-5 for review

It would be good to have a community document or application that we can use to enumerate and comment on the various updates and topics.  It would also hell serve as an agenda for our meetings.  I think Peter proposed something a while ago, should we start using that or something similar?

-----Original Message-----
From: Public [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Gervase Markham via Public
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 7:37 AM
To: Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Draft Agenda for F2F Taipei Oct. 3-5 for review

On 24/09/17 00:45, Kirk Hall via Public wrote:
> Please review the draft Agenda below, and offer comments and new 
> topics – as you see, we still have some open time on both days.

I think we should have a discussion about follow-ons to ballot 190. Lots of things got pushed off so we could get the validation methods back into the document, and may of those improvements added significant value. Now the methods are back in there, we should triage all the improvement suggestions and get a sense of how controversial each is, so we can pass another ballot reasonably quickly with the uncontroversial ones, and map out a way forward for the more controversial ones.

Will this happen as part of the Validation WG discussions, or do we need a separate slot for it?


Public mailing list
Public at cabforum.org

More information about the Validation mailing list