[cabf_validation] Validation Agenda

[Wayne Thayer]

On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 8:10 AM, Tim Hollebeek via Validation <
validation at cabforum.org> wrote:

>
>
> I unfortunately will not be able to attend this week’s validation WG call,
> as I have a conflicting all day meeting.
>
>
>
I will also be unable to attend. I'd suggest that you ask someone to
volunteer to lead the meeting (and someone to take notes!) or cancel if
there are no volunteers.

Looking at the Trello board, I’ve moved “Future of Validation WG after
> Ballot 206” to Completed, as all we have left is to announce that we are
> now a subcommittee and get approval from the Server Certificate WG after
> July 3rd.  It’s not even clear that that’s necessary under the old or new
> bylaws, but we might as well do it just so everyone is on the same page.
>
>
>
> The following items should be discussed:
>
>
>
>    1. Bruce’s new validation method.  Now that people have had more time
>    to read it, are there more comments?
>
> I think it would make sense for Bruce (or someone) to come back with a
proposal that addresses the issues raised so far.

>
>
>    1. Doug’s Method 3 improvements.  There’s been some discussion on the
>    list, but feedback from more people would be helpful.
>    2. Jeremy’s IP ballot.  It seems to me like we’ve circled back to
>    being able to pass it unchanged and remove 3.2.2.5(4).  Does anyone see any
>    problems, or have methods that need to be added?
>
> I'd suggest that you (or I will volunteer) begin the ballot process.

>
>
>    1. With the impending changes to WHOIS due to GDPR, is it worth
>    clarifying that using RDAP to get WHOIS data is not only acceptable, but
>    superior?  I think RDAP is allowed under the current language, but I’ve
>    heard other interpretations.  It would be nice to clarify that.
>
> Makes sense. Are you looking for someone to draft that ballot?

>
>
>    1. What do we want to accomplish at the London meeting?  I’ve told
>    Kirk we probably want 4 hours or more to continue making progress, but also
>    want to leave time for other working groups on WG day this time.  Does that
>    sound like a good plan?
>
> If we have that much time, I would suggest that we have breakout sessions
on 3-4 topics, then have each group present their recommendations to the
whole WG. Topic ideas are EV improvements, Domain validation improvements,
and IP address improvements. I'm sure there are a few more I'm forgetting
because they're not yet on the Trello board. My point in suggesting
breakout sessions is that I think they will help us get down into more of
the details and emerge with ballot proposals.

>
>
>    1. Other topics.  Feel free to suggest.
>
>
>
> -Tim
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/attachments/20180423/daa187f5/attachment.html>