[cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: Ballot 190: Domain Validation
sleevi at google.com
Thu Apr 13 14:00:15 MST 2017
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 4:45 PM, Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>
> Your analysis below is not correct. The “law” in the CA/Browser Forum is
> what is approved by the members in a Ballot (all of it – in Ballot 190,
> that includes both Section 1 and Section 2 – both sections have equal
> validity and applicability because both were adopted by the members at the
> same time.)
I'm sorry Kirk, but your analysis is not correct.
What suggestion of the documents are you suggesting Section 2 modifies? How
are you suggesting members audit it, if not part of the document? How are
you suggesting future Ballots reform it?
> In contrast, the BRs are just a compilation of those portions of prior
> adopted Ballots that have long-term applicability to members. It’s a
> mistake to junk up the BRs with lots of effective dates and transition rule
> that will expire, and it’s unnecessary. Again, the adopted ballots of the
> Forum are the “law” – all sections of the ballots equally – and not the BR
> compilations themselves. I think Google’s Legal Department will agree.
Kirk, I will again emphasize to you the Baseline Requirements are not a
legal document. Your legal analysis is appreciated, but not relevant. These
are technical standards. They belong in the standards.
> We could put ballot transition rules in BRs themselves (for Ballot 190,
> move from Section 2 to Section 1 and make part of BR 22.214.171.124), but I would
> rather not – then the transition rules are no longer relevant (because they
> are time-based and will expire), they have to be pulled out again by a
> later ballot – not useful. The transition rules will exist in Section 2 of
> the adopted Ballot 190 itself, and that is sufficient.
I strongly disagree here.
> Another option is to add transition rules like Ballot 190, Section 2 to
> the BRs as “Notes” to BR 126.96.36.199 that are not part of BR 188.8.131.52, and that
> can later be removed by the BRs compiler without a further ballot once the
> transition rules are no longer relevant (because all validation data from
> before the effective date of Ballot 190 will have expired). That’s what
> some legislatures do, and I wouldn’t object to that.
They are either normative parts of the technical standards or they are not.
If they want to have force, they are normative.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Public