[cabfpub] Ballot 190: Domain Validation
Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com
Thu Apr 13 15:05:30 MST 2017
Can you explain why you oppose including Sec. 2 of Ballot 190 as a Note at the end of BR 184.108.40.206 as updated? This is commonly done for rule sets around the world, and is the simplest and easiest way to proceed.
I thought your concern was making sure that someone who looked at the updated BRs would see what transition rules had been adopted, and would not have to go back to Ballot 190 to find out. A Notice at the end of BR 220.127.116.11 would accomplish that.
It would be very helpful to the Forum if you would consider alternatives to the exact outcome you want, and evaluate other options that will meet your concerns and also the concerns and opinions of other members. Right now, it’s hard to understand why you are not showing any flexibility.
From: Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi at google.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2017 2:59 PM
To: Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>
Cc: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL]Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 190: Domain Validation
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 5:56 PM, Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com<mailto:Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>> wrote:
While I still disagree with your personal interpretation – why can’t we do things the way other deliberative bodies do? – as I said before, I have no problem including “Notes” at the end of provisions that are not part of the BRs, but which inform readers of what the transition rules for a particular ballot are. The notes can then be dropped once they are no longer relevant.
You're again inventing a new process that is inconsistent with how we've handled every other ballot, and introduces unnecessary ambiguity.
I would hope Jeremy would see how inadvisible this suggestion is. To save trouble - We would vote No against the process you've described. Would you vote No if we handled it like every other ballot?
So we can include Section 2 of Ballot 190 as a “Note” after BR 18.104.22.168, which is the section affected by the transition rule, then remove it once the transition period is over – everyone will see that in the compiled version of the updated BRs. Sounds like a solution we can all live with.
Unfortunately, it seems you continue to misunderstand the concerns, and I'm not sure I can sufficiently explain them to you. Jeremy tends to understand these issues, so I'm sure he would have no problem addressing these concerns in a way that meaningfully work.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Public