[cabf_validation] Validation WG: Do we need a plan?

[Tim Hollebeek]

I agree with both of your suggestions.

 

From: Doug Beattie [mailto:doug.beattie at globalsign.com] 
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 9:04 AM
To: Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com>; CA/Browser Forum Validation
WG List <validation at cabforum.org>
Subject: RE: Validation WG: Do we need a plan?

 

Tim and all,

 

Yes, we need a plan!

 

I think the best short term approach is to flush out risks and mitigations
of the current methods using Wayne's Google Doc.  We identified a lot of
good thing during the Validation Summit, now we need to think about them.
I've created a number of table where we can list risks and mitigations.  If
anyone has a better format or approach, I'm not at all tied to this, so go
for it.  Getting a better understanding of the current methods will also
help us propose new methods that are at least as secure.

 

If half of us could spend 30 minutes on this each week, we'd make great
progress, then we could review any important "flagged" items during our
calls to wrap up those points and move on.

 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aJiOzYVTpoAPVWDucnp20cTO2PR_cRsHncvkhlrc
R10/edit#

 

Doug

 

From: Validation [mailto:validation-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Tim
Hollebeek via Validation
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 7:02 AM
To: CA/Browser Forum Validation WG List <validation at cabforum.org
<mailto:validation at cabforum.org> >
Subject: [cabf_validation] Validation WG: Do we need a plan?

 

 

I'm going to send out an agenda on Tuesday, but I'd like to send out
something for people to provide feedback and comment on first.  We only have
five hours of discussion before the next forum meeting: March 29, April 12,
April 26, May 10, and May 24.

 

The discussion on the last call was great, but my personal feeling was that
open ended discussions like that could easily consume all five hours without
reaching a conclusion.

 

I'd like to hear comments on how we can structure the discussion to make
sure we are productively using our time.  There's a lot of demand for VWG
working group time right now because there are several high priority items,
and I personally feel like I'm going to have to be a bit more aggressive
about cutting of tangents and time-boxing discussions in order to keeping us
moving forward.

 

I rarely get comments either before or after the agenda is posted, and I
want to make sure we keep up the momentum from the Validation Summit, so I'd
like to hear comments on how we make sure we do that.

 

-Tim

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/attachments/20180329/0622b965/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4940 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/attachments/20180329/0622b965/attachment.p7s>