在 2016年10月27日星期四 UTC+8上午8:09:06,Peter Kurrasch写道:
> I think these are both good points and my recommendation is that Mozilla deny 
> GDCA's request for inclusion.
> 
> 
> We should not have to explain something as basic as document versioning and 
> version control. If GDCA can not demonstrate sufficient controls over their 
> documentation, there is no reason for the Internet community to place 
> confidence in any of the other versioning systems that are needed to operate 
> a CA.
> 
> 
> Question: Are auditors expected to review translations of CP or CPS docs and 
> verify consistency between them?
> 
>                                                                               
>                                                        
> 
>                                                                               
>                                                                               
>                                        
>                                                                               
>                                                                               
>                                                   
>   
> From: Jakob Bohm
> Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2016 9:07 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Guang Dong Certificate Authority (GDCA) root inclusion request
> 
> 
> On 21/10/2016 10:38, Han Yuwei wrote:
> >
> > I think this is a major mistake and a investgation should be conducted for 
> > CPS is a critical document about CA. This is not just a translation problem 
> > but a version control problem. Sometimes it can be lying.
> >
> 
> Let me try to be more specific:
> 
> When publishing a document called CPS version 4.3 the document with
> that number must have the same contents in all languages that have a
> document with that name and version number.
> 
> When making any change, even just correcting a mistyped URL, the
> document becomes a new document version which should have a new and
> larger number than the number of the document before the change.
> Thus when a published document refers to a broken URL on your own
> server, it is often cheaper to repair the server than to publish a new
> document version.  Some of the oldest CAs have been proudly
> publishing their various important files at multiple URLs corresponding
> to whatever was mentioned in old CP and CPS documents etc., only
> shutting down those URLs years after the corresponding CA roots were
> shut down.
> 
> There can also be a "draft" document which has no number and which
> contains the changes that will go into the next numbered edition.  Such
> a "draft" would have no official significance, as it has not been
> officially "published".  For a well-planned change, the final "draft"
> would be translated and checked into the relevant languages (e.g.
> Chinese with mainland writing system, Chinese with Hong Kong and Macao
> Special Administrative Regions old writing system, English), before
> simultaneously publishing the matching documents with the same number
> on the same day.
> 
> There are infinitely many version numbers in the universe to choose
> from.  There are also computer programs that can generate new version
> numbers every time a draft is changed, but computers cannot decide when
> a version is good enough in all languages to make an official
> publication, and the computer generated version numbers are often
> impractical for publication because they count all the small steps that
> were not published.
> 
> 
> Enjoy
> 
> Jakob
> -- 
> Jakob Bohm, CIO, Partner, WiseMo A/S.  https://www.wisemo.com
> Transformervej 29, 2860 Søborg, Denmark.  Direct +45 31 13 16 10
> This public discussion message is non-binding and may contain errors.
> WiseMo - Remote Service Management for PCs, Phones and Embedded
> _______________________________________________
> dev-security-policy mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy

We’d like to explain a few points.

1. We have already implemented version control on Chinese version CP/CPS, the 
revision and release of CP/CPS are reviewed and approved by the security policy 
committee (see section 1.5 in CP/CPS). The Chinese version CP/CPS is also 
reviewed by our auditor.

2. The Chinese version CP/CPS is the formal documents we published in our 
Website. In the initial phase of "Bug 1128392", we have summited the Chinese 
version CP/CPS to Mozilla, and Mozilla release a basic review list in file 
"1128392-CAInformation.pdf" which contains instructions for us to summit some 
chapters of the CP/CPS in English version. We are not able to provide an 
accurate English version CP/CPS, but we will do our best to finish this 
translations and upload for reviewing process. We will upload the new English 
version CP/CPS for reference ASAP. However the English version CP/CPS should 
not be considered as formal documents. In case of any discrepancy between two 
versions, the Chinese version shall prevail.

3. Our auditor only reviews the Chinese version CP/CPS. It is not their 
responsibility to confirm the translated English versions.
_______________________________________________
dev-security-policy mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy

Reply via email to