Re: Policy 2.4 Proposal: Update required version number of Baseline Requirements to 1.3.7

2017-01-18 Thread Ryan Sleevi
On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 7:16 AM, Gervase Markham wrote: > On 17/01/17 23:32, Ryan Sleevi wrote: > > BRs 1.3.0 ( https://cabforum.org/wp-content/uploads/CAB-Forum-BR- > 1.3.0.pdf > > ) already include the clause (in Section 2.2) that: > > "The CA SHALL publicly give effect to

Re: Policy 2.4 Proposal: Define how quickly audit reports must be provided

2017-01-18 Thread Jakob Bohm
On 18/01/2017 16:20, Gervase Markham wrote: On 17/01/17 23:27, Jakob Bohm wrote: Notes on the text in that branched section (other than the actual change discussed here): This paranthesis indicates none of these are in scope for this particular issue, just something that might be their own

Re: Policy 2.4 Proposal: Define how quickly audit reports must be provided

2017-01-18 Thread Kurt Roeckx
On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 07:23:35AM -0800, Peter Bowen wrote: > > > On Jan 18, 2017, at 7:18 AM, Gervase Markham wrote: > > > > On 17/01/17 23:33, Jakob Bohm wrote: > >> How about "_and versions and strong (>= 256 bits) hashes_", > > > > Do people think we need to go this far?

Re: Policy 2.4 Proposal: Define how quickly audit reports must be provided

2017-01-18 Thread Peter Bowen
> On Jan 18, 2017, at 7:18 AM, Gervase Markham wrote: > > On 17/01/17 23:33, Jakob Bohm wrote: >> How about "_and versions and strong (>= 256 bits) hashes_", > > Do people think we need to go this far? > > If we do, we'll need them to specify filenames, not just document >

Re: Policy 2.4 Proposal: Define how quickly audit reports must be provided

2017-01-18 Thread Gervase Markham
On 17/01/17 23:27, Jakob Bohm wrote: > Notes on the text in that branched section (other than the actual > change discussed here): > > - It does not include some other changes under discussion (such as the > new version of the BRs). This may need to be manually reapplied after > merging in the

Re: Policy 2.4 Proposal: Define how quickly audit reports must be provided

2017-01-18 Thread Gervase Markham
On 17/01/17 23:33, Jakob Bohm wrote: > How about "_and versions and strong (>= 256 bits) hashes_", Do people think we need to go this far? If we do, we'll need them to specify filenames, not just document titles. Otherwise, one wouldn't know if the hash was a .doc, a .pdf, or what. Gerv

Re: Policy 2.4 Proposal: Update required version number of Baseline Requirements to 1.3.7

2017-01-18 Thread Gervase Markham
On 17/01/17 23:32, Ryan Sleevi wrote: > BRs 1.3.0 ( https://cabforum.org/wp-content/uploads/CAB-Forum-BR-1.3.0.pdf > ) already include the clause (in Section 2.2) that: > "The CA SHALL publicly give effect to these Requirements and represent > that it will adhere to the latest published version."