We MUST comply with RFC 3647 which means that we must include sections that are listed in the outline of 3647, and if we have nothing to say, we leave it empty. We can't "hijack" the numbering just because we have no requirements to describe.
That's my interpretation of the RFC 3647 compliance. Perhaps others can chime in and state their opinion. Thanks, DZ. Dec 1, 2023 14:50:23 Inigo Barreira <[email protected]>: > Thanks Dimitris. > > I think that strictly speaking, in RFC 3647 this section is the 4.3.2 Initial > Identity Validation and the first bullet is about proving the possession of > the private key, but there´s no specific section other than the general > approach that we´ve implemented. > That said, the current EVG does not include anything about the possession of > the private key because that´s covered in the TLS BRs so that section does > not exist in the EVGs and therefore I didn´t know how to avoid/implement it. > > I decided to continue with the normal numbering for an easy checking, so all > 11 section is moved into section 3.2 and the rest of the sub-numbers do not > change (so 11.1 would be 3.2.1, 11.1.1 would be 3.2.1.1, etc.) > I understand your point but I think we can´t create a section 3.2.1 for > private key possession because there´s no such a text in the EVGs (and don´t > think we should add anything new, even a NA for that) and don´t know which > other sections we can create under 3.2 that can break the current > equivalence, which again was done for an easy comparison. > > So, what would you suggest to “comply” with that? I don´t have a clear idea. > > Regards > > *De:* Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) <[email protected]> > *Enviado el:* jueves, 30 de noviembre de 2023 13:16 > *Para:* Inigo Barreira <[email protected]>; Tim Hollebeek > <[email protected]>; CA/B Forum Server Certificate WG Public > Discussion List <[email protected]> > *Asunto:* Re: [Servercert-wg] SC-065: Convert EVGs into RFC 3647 format > pre-ballot > > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click > links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the > content is safe. > > Inigo, > > As I am working to migrate the EV Guidelines into the EV Code Signing > Baseline Requirements I took a look at the mapping you provided for the EV > Guidelines and noticed that you are proposing migration of EVG section 11.1 > into section 3.2.1. This particular section is labeled "Method to prove > possession of private key" in RFC 3647 so I don't think it is appropriate. I > think it's best to create new subsections under 3.2. > > Thanks, > Dimitris. > > On 8/9/2023 7:54 μ.μ., Inigo Barreira wrote: > Hi all, > > > Attached you´ll find the EVG v1.8.0 with comments in all sections indicating > where those sections, and the content, have been moved into the new EVG > RFC3647 format. So, with this document, plus the redlined version, I hope you > can have now a clearer view of the changes done. > Let me know if you need anything else to clarify the new version. > > > Regards > > > *De:* Inigo Barreira <[email protected]> > *Enviado el:* martes, 29 de agosto de 2023 17:06 > *Para:* Tim Hollebeek <[email protected]>; Dimitris Zacharopoulos > (HARICA) <[email protected]>; CA/B Forum Server Certificate WG Public > Discussion List <[email protected]> > *Asunto:* RE: [Servercert-wg] SC-065: Convert EVGs into RFC 3647 format > pre-ballot > > > Thanks Dimitris and Tim. > I did something of that internally but didn´t reflect on the document, so > will try to reproduce to have it clearer. > > > OTOH, and as indicated in the PR, the whole section 11 has been placed in > section 3.2 keeping the rest of the numbering. So, for example: > > > EVG EVG3647 > 11.1 3.2.1 > 11.1.1 3.2.1.1 > 11.1.2 3.2.1.2 > 11.1.3 3.2.1.3 > 11.2 3.2.2 > 11.2.1 3.2.2.1 > ….. …. > 11.13 3.2.13 > 11.14 3.2.14 > 11.14.1 3.2.14.1 > 11.14.2 3.2.14.2 > 11.14.3 3.2.14.3 > > > Hope this can clarify the main difficult that I found in the document, where > to place it and how. > > > Regards > > > *De:* Tim Hollebeek <[email protected]> > *Enviado el:* martes, 29 de agosto de 2023 16:59 > *Para:* Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) <[email protected]>; Inigo Barreira > <[email protected]>; CA/B Forum Server Certificate WG Public > Discussion List <[email protected]> > *Asunto:* RE: [Servercert-wg] SC-065: Convert EVGs into RFC 3647 format > pre-ballot > > > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click > links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the > content is safe. > > > Yes, exactly. I would like to see a list that shows that EVG-classic section > 1.4 is now in EVG-3647 section 4.1. Then I can look at where the new text > landed, see how the conversion was handled, we can all verify that nothing > was lost or left out, etc. > > > Without that, anyone attempting to review the document is forced to recreate > the mapping just to figure out where everything went and that nothing was > missed or put in the wrong place. Redlines are not sufficient when large > amounts of text are moving around to different places. > > > I’m saying this because from my spot-checking, the conversion appears to be > pretty good, and I’d like to be able to do a final verification that it’s > mostly correct so I can endorse. > > > -Tim > > > *From:* Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Tuesday, August 29, 2023 7:58 AM > *To:* Inigo Barreira <[email protected]>; CA/B Forum Server > Certificate WG Public Discussion List <[email protected]>; Tim > Hollebeek <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [Servercert-wg] SC-065: Convert EVGs into RFC 3647 format > pre-ballot > > > Hi Inigo, > > You can take some guidance from previous successful efforts to convert > existing documents into RFC 3647 format. The latest attempt was in the Code > Signing BRs conversion in May 2022. Check out the mapping document and the > comments in the ballot discussion > period[https://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/cscwg-public/2022-May/000795.html]. > > For each existing section/paragraph, it would be nice to have a comment > describing where that existing language will land in the converted document > (destination). This will allow all existing text to be accounted for. > > During this process, you might encounter duplicate or redundant text which > needs to be flagged accordingly. You might also get into some uncertainty as > to which RFC3647 section is a best fit for existing text that might require > additional discussion. > > I hope this helps. > > > Dimitris. > > On 29/8/2023 12:42 μ.μ., Inigo Barreira via Servercert-wg wrote: > Hi Tim, > > > See attached redlined and current versions. I just used what Martijn > suggested yesterday but let me know if this is what you were looking for. > > > Regards > > > *De:* Tim Hollebeek <[email protected]> > *Enviado el:* lunes, 28 de agosto de 2023 19:49 > *Para:* Inigo Barreira <[email protected]>; CA/B Forum Server > Certificate WG Public Discussion List <[email protected]> > *Asunto:* RE: SC-065: Convert EVGs into RFC 3647 format pre-ballot > > > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click > links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the > content is safe. > > > Thanks for doing this Inigo … I know re-organizations like this are a lot of > work and fall very much in the category of “important but not fun”. So > thanks for taking an initial stab at this. > > > Is there a mapping that shows where all the original text ended up? I think > that’s going to be essential for people to be able to review this. I did > some spot checking, and your conversion looks pretty good, but I wasn’t able > to do a more detailed review without a mapping. > > > -Tim > > > *From:* Servercert-wg <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of > *Inigo Barreira via Servercert-wg > *Sent:* Monday, August 28, 2023 5:20 AM > *To:* CA/B Forum Server Certificate WG Public Discussion List > <[email protected]> > *Subject:* [Servercert-wg] SC-065: Convert EVGs into RFC 3647 format > pre-ballot > > > Hello, > The current Extended Validation Guidelines (EVGs) are written in a > non-standardized format. For many years it has been discussed to convert this > document into the RFC 3647 format and follow the standardized model for this > type of documents. > > > Given that this has been known for several years, I have prepared the > following ballot text, which converts the EVGs into the RFC 3647 format: > EVGs based on RFC3647 by barrini · Pull Request #440 · cabforum/servercert > (github.com)[https://url.avanan.click/v2/___https:/github.com/cabforum/servercert/pull/440___.YXAzOmRpZ2ljZXJ0OmE6bzoyOGIxNWVhZGVmZDlkZTM0NjQzZTA3YTlmYTA2MzM5YTo2OmExZWM6NGZmMGEzM2U0ZWZjOTU4MTM1NWRkNjU3ZDE5YjU3Y2YxNzg1NWU0ZTVjYzkzY2NjM2M0MWU5MzEyYzJmZTQ0NzpoOkY] > > > I am currently seeking two endorsers as well as any feedback on the ballot > content itself (wording, effective dates, etc.). > > > Thanks, > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Servercert-wg mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/servercert-wg > > >
_______________________________________________ Servercert-wg mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/servercert-wg
