CA Inclusion Request Process

[Ben Wilson]

All,

I am soliciting your feedback regarding a change in Mozilla's CA Inclusion Dashboard, located at https://wiki.mozilla.org/CA/Dashboard ("Dashboard").  We use Bugzilla whiteboard entries to track the status of inclusion requests, and the Dashboard is populated from Bugzilla whiteboard entries. We use similar entries in the CCADB to track case status, see https://wiki.mozilla.org/CA/Certificate_Change_Requests.  

Mozilla has changed the sequence of steps so that public discussion can begin before completion of the CP/CPS review. See Step 4 at https://wiki.mozilla.org/CA/Application_Process.  Full CP/CPS review can still happen before public discussion. However, in many cases, the CP/CPS review will occur during the public discussion phase--for instance, during the first four weeks of public discussion.

You will note in the Dashboard that "Detailed CP/CPS Review" is listed before "Ready for Public Discussion" and "In Public Discussion". I need your advice on changing how we list "Detailed CP/CPS Review" so that it no longer appears to be a prerequisite to public discussion. A detailed CP/CPS review will still need to be performed before a request will be moved to "Pending Approval" on the whiteboard, the CCADB, and the Dashboard. In other words, the same changes would be made in the sequence of stages in the CCADB to mirror Mozilla's CA inclusion process.

What are your thoughts?

Thanks,

Ben

[Aaron Gable]

Perhaps just moving "Ready for Public Discussion" above the CP/CPS review stage, and renaming it "Ready for CP/CPS Review and Public Discussion" would work? That way its title indicates that the next two stages below it can happen in parallel.

As an additional note, it looks like some of the sections in that dashboard are also going to need to have their backlinks to the Application Process document updated, as they say things like "This section lists CAs who have completed the detailed review phase of step 3 of the inclusion/update request process." while "Step 3" is now something different.

Aaron

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "public" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to public+un...@ccadb.org.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/ccadb.org/d/msgid/public/CA%2B1gtaZ9U4gHnjP2bNJqLra97xw9OqxpAMVpodGvHQhJmd8LyQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Chema Lopez]

+1

Chema López

Director Área Innovación, Cumplimiento y Tecnología

+34 666 429 224

                                                  

Barcelona  Av. Torre Blanca 57, Edif. Esadecreapolis, Local 3B6 - 08173 Sant Cugat del Vallès | +34 934 774 245

Madrid  C/ Velázquez 59, 1º Ctro-Izda. - 28001 Madrid | +34 915 762 181

www.firmaprofesional.com

El contenido de este correo electrónico y de sus anexos es confidencial. Si usted recibe este mensaje por error, debe saber que está prohibido hacer uso, divulgación y/o copia del mismo. En tal caso le agradeceríamos que advierta de inmediato a su remitente y que proceda a destruir el mensaje.

 

Le informamos que, cumpliendo la normativa en materia de protección de datos, FIRMAPROFESIONAL tratará sus datos con la finalidad de garantizar las relaciones con la empresa, entidad u organización a la que usted representa o en la que trabaja y por el período que dure dicha relación. Podrá ejercer sus derechos de acceso, rectificación, supresión, limitación, portabilidad y oposición al tratamiento ante el Responsable: FIRMAPROFESIONAL, S.A., Av. Torre Blanca, 57, local 3B6 (Edificio Esadecreapolis), 08173 Sant Cugat del Vallès (Barcelona), o bien mediante correo electrónico a: rg...@firmaprofesional.com, en cualquier caso adjuntando una copia de su D.N.I. o documento equivalente. Asimismo, podrá formular reclamaciones ante la Agencia Española de Protección de Datos. Para más información puede consultar nuestra política de privacidad.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/ccadb.org/d/msgid/public/CAEmnErcxGzU1FkAS8Z4NfHHARMFfE%3DDQNGAQd3VCZS0rFxucxw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ben Wilson]

Thanks.  So, I have an approach in mind.  We could replace the whiteboard tags for both "ca-ready-for-discussion" and "ca-cps-review" with a single entry "ready-for-cps-review-and-public-discussion". In the CCADB, we can replace a case status of  "In Detailed CP/CPS Review" with "Ready for CP/CPS Review and Public Discussion".  Here is how it would fit into the current process:

Whiteboard Tag	CCADB Status
ca-initial	Initial Request Received
ca-verifying	Information Verification in Process
ready-for-cps-review-and-public-discussion

Ready for CP/CPS Review and Public Discussion

ca-in-discussion	In Public Discussion
ca-pending-approval	Pending Approval
ca-approved	Approved, Pending Inclusion

Ben

[Gordon Bock]

Hi Ben,

Not to throw a wrench in the mix and I will defer to the opinions of others, but the “ready-for-cps-review-and-public-discussion” doesn’t seem right as it doesn’t identify that any action has taken place, only that it is ready for an action which is implicit with the prior task being complete.

 

May I suggest adding a ca-cps-review tag below the ca-in-discussion tag.

Rationale: there is nothing precluding the CP/CPS review to take place in parallel with the discussion phase, however both need to be completed before ca-pending-approval.

 

PROPOSAL

NOTE: I also modified/added the 2 items denoted with an (*).

 

Whiteboard Tag	CCADB Status
ca-initial	Initial Request Received

*ca-verified	*Information Verified
**ca-discussion-approved	Passed Public Discussion
ca-cps-review	CP/CPS Reviewed

ca-pending-approval	Pending Approval
ca-approved	Approved, Pending Inclusion

 

*Altered from ca-verifying to ca-verified.

** Altered tag to denote when discussion is complete. Other option is to use 2 tags; one when in discussion, the other when complete.

 

Cheers,

-Gordon

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/ccadb.org/d/msgid/public/CA%2B1gtaZOcttNLz8O8mGdVc3_DUYSrBmODLrLEgDwU5KgE1pM4A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ben Wilson]

The existing approach labels the status of the case based on tasks that are in a queue or are otherwise being performed. Gordon's suggestion is that the status be labeled based on the performance of an event. I think I like the existing approach, but I agree it doesn't provide a clean "checklist" for when things, like detailed CP/CPS review, have been performed. Gordon's suggested approach does.

Ben