I agree. It shows the CA didn't accidentally delete or omit something. On Apr 25, 2017, at 8:12 PM, Ryan Sleevi via Public <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 9:35 PM, Peter Bowen <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: On Apr 25, 2017, at 5:00 PM, Ryan Sleevi via Public <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Like we talked about at the recent F2F in Raleigh, I'd love to see a world where we can slowly move to consistent CP/CPSes. This is especially important for efforts like the CCADB with Microsoft's help, or the BR self-assessments that Mozilla's requesting. You can see the initial proposed edits at https://github.com/sleevi/cabforum-docs/pull/3/files , along with explanations for the motivations for these. Am I correct that you are using "MUST be structured in accordance with RFC 3647" as short hand for "MUST include all the section headings specified in the outline in RFC 3647 section 6"? Should it say that sections without subordinate headings and without content need to specify "No stipulation" or is that too specific? That's a great point. Certainly, the intent is that all the section headings are present, in the same order and with the prescribed content/topic of discussion. I'd love to hear from others, but I actually think "No stipulation" is a useful and valuable addition. _______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
