CA/Browser Forum
Home » Posts » Ballot 128 – CP Review Working Group (passes)

Ballot 128 – CP Review Working Group (passes)

Voting closed on July 9, 2014.

In Favor: Buypass, DigiCert, GlobalSign, OPENTRUST, QuoVadis, SECOM, Symantec, Trend Micro, TURKTRUST, WoSign, Opera, Mozilla and Microsoft.

Abstaining: Actalis

Result: Ballot passes.

Ballot 128 – CP Review Working Group

During the CAB Forum face-to-face meeting, we discussed creating a working group to compare the NIST IR proposal and various with the existing CAB Forum work product. The group will also continue our contemplation on converting to a 3647 format to make future comparisons easier.

Many of the ideas encompassed in these other standards documents are great ideas that could improve the BRs, EV Guidelines, or Network Security Guidelines. Although the Forum may not adopt the specific language presented in these documents, we certainly can use the previous work product as a starting point for discussion. This group is tasked with identifying those starting point and either bringing them to the main CAB Forum or making recommended ballot proposals.

Most CPs, including the NIST IR, are formatted in a 3647 format. The BRs are a CP that lacks this format. Having the CAB Forum use an RFC-complaint format will increase the ease in comparing new and existing guidelines with Forum work product. The group will look at the 3647 conversion work already completed and decide whether the CAB Forum should continue the project.

To accommodate these goals, we plan to create the new CP Review Working Group. I look forward to the discussions.


Jeremy Rowley (DigiCert) made the following motion, endorsed by Dean Coclin (Symantec) and Doug Beattie (GlobalSign)


The CAB Forum shall create a Working Group called the CP Review Working Group.

Scope: The CP Review Working Group will (i) consider existing and proposed standards, (ii) create a list of potential improvements based on the considered standards that improve the existing CAB Forum work product, (iii) evaluate the transition to a 3647 format based on the amount.

Deliverables: The Working Group will produce topics of discussion and proposed ballots that improve the CA infrastructure based on existing standards and documents. The Working Group will also make a recommendation on whether to finish the 3647 conversion. Of course, all work product produced by the Working Group is non-binding on the forum until officially adopted by ballot.

Motion ends

The review period starts on Wednesday, June 25, 2014 and ends on July 2, 2014. Voting starts at 2200 UTC on Wednesday, July 2, 2014. The voting period will close at 2200 UTC on Wednesday, July 9, 2014.

Votes must be cast by posting an on-list reply to this thread.

A vote in favor of the ballot must indicate a clear ‘yes’ in the response.

A vote against the ballot must indicate a clear ‘no’ in the response.

A vote to abstain must indicate a clear ‘abstain’ in the response.

Unclear responses will not be counted.

The latest vote received from any representative of a voting member before the close of the voting period will be counted.

Voting members are listed here:

In order for the motion to be adopted, two thirds or more of the votes cast by members in the CA category and more than one half of the votes cast by members in the browser category must be in favor. Also, quorum is currently six (6) members– at least six members must participate in the ballot, either by voting in favor, voting against, or by abstaining for the vote to be valid.

Edit this page
The Certification Authority Browser Forum (CA/Browser Forum) is a voluntary gathering of Certificate Issuers and suppliers of Internet browser software and other applications that use certificates (Certificate Consumers).