Then I think it would be good to simply keep a bulleted list of ideas (of which every bit I just gave applies), but worry about the specific language and wording changes closer to an actual ballot, to avoid the unfortunately not-uncommon situation of a 'fix' overwriting other corrections in that area.
In short, anything that says "Replace all of" or "Delete all of" more than a few weeks of being a ballot makes me rather nervous :) On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 11:45 AM, Tim Hollebeek <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes, I’m really planning a year out. > > > > *From:* Ryan Sleevi [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Friday, May 4, 2018 11:06 AM > *To:* Tim Hollebeek <[email protected]>; CA/Browser Forum Public > Discussion List <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [cabfpub] Spring Cleanup Ballot 2019 > > > > > > > > On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 10:52 AM, Tim Hollebeek via Public < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > Any objections if the Spring Cleanup branch includes cleanup changes > involving dates that will be true in Spring of 2019? > > > > I'm not sure what you're proposing here - was that a typo from 2018 to > 2019? Or are you really planning a year out? :) > > > > If you really meant 2019, then I think it's unwise to start planning those > sorts of changes so far ahead, given the unfortunate tendency to forget to > continually update and ensure semantic consistency with any other changes > the Forum may have made in the interim. > > > > For example, removing the definition of Domain Authorization Document, and > changing 3.2.2.4.5 to read: > > > > “3.2.2.4.5 Domain Authorization Document > > > > This method has been retired and MUST NOT be used. > > Completed validations using this method SHALL NOT be used for the issuance > of certificates.” > > > > Did you mean to include 3.2.2.4.1 if including 3.2.2.4.5? Otherwise, these > are both August 2018 - not Spring 2018 (which supports the Spring 2019 > theory). If you're going 2019, then you'd also need to be touching 4.2.1 - > for consistency. > > > > There are similar changes that could be made in 2.2: > > > > “The Certificate Policy and/or Certification Practice Statement MUST: > > > > 1. be structured in accordance with RFC 3647, > 2. include all material required by RFC 3647, > 3. state the CA’s policy or practice on processing CAA Records for > Fully Qualified Domain Names. > > > > The CA’s CAA policy or practice MUST: > > > > 1. be consistent with these Requirements, > 2. clearly specify the set of Issuer Domain Names that the CA > recognizes in CAA "issue" or "issuewild" records as permitting it to issue > > > > The CA SHALL log all actions taken, if any, consistent with its processing > practice.” > > > > Where we don’t have to worry about RFC 2527 any longer. > > > > So, that's a Spring 2018 thing (specifically, May 2018). And if you're > cleaning up for 2018, it's not clear if you were intending to touch the > following paragraph (regarding September 2017) or not. > > > > If you're going a Spring 2018 route, then you'd want to be touching 6.3.2, > 3.2.2.8, 7.1.3, 7.1, 7.1.4.2.1, 3.2.2.6, 4.9.10, 6.1.5, 8 (the implementors > note), and the definition of "Effective Date" >
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
