Of course! Done: https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/issues/513
On Wed, May 8, 2024 at 8:37 AM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) < [email protected]> wrote: > Thanks Aaron, > > Would it be ok for you to create a GitHub issue > <https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/issues> to identify the specific > sections that deviate in content? We might tackle that in a cleanup ballot. > I don't think the capitalization is so much of a concern but if others > think it is, please speak up :) > > > Dimitris. > > On 8/5/2024 1:19 π.μ., Aaron Gable wrote: > > Two notes on this ballot, findings from our process for handling upcoming > requirements: > > 1) Let's Encrypt has created and open-sourced a tool > <https://github.com/letsencrypt/cp-cps/tree/d5b258a/tools/lint> for > linting a CPS to confirm compliance with RFC 3647 Section 6 and Ballot > SC-074. If you maintain your CPS document in markdown, it should be very > simple to use or adapt to your particular situation. > > 2) The Baseline Requirements themselves do not quite comply with RFC 3647 > Section 6, with several section titles that deviate from that outline in > either capitalization or actual content. > > We hope this information is helpful to others, > Aaron > > On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 9:27 AM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) via > Servercert-wg <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> SC-74 - Clarify CP/CPS structure according to RFC 3647 Summary >> >> The TLS Baseline Requirements require in section 2.2 that: >> >> *"The Certificate Policy and/or Certification Practice Statement MUST be >> structured in accordance with RFC 3647 and MUST include all material >> required by RFC 3647."* >> >> The intent of this language was to ensure that all CAs' CP and/or CPS >> documents contain a similar structure, making it easier to review and >> compare against the BRs. However, there was some ambiguity as to the actual >> structure that CAs should follow. After several discussions in the SCWG >> Public Mailing List >> <https://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/servercert-wg/2023-November/004070.html> >> and F2F meetings, it was agreed that more clarity should be added to the >> existing requirement, pointing to the outline described in section 6 of RFC >> 3647. >> The following motion has been proposed by Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) >> and endorsed by Aaron Poulsen (Amazon) and Tim Hollebeek (Digicert). >> >> You can view the github pull request representing this ballot here >> <https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/pull/503>. >> Motion Begins >> >> MODIFY the "Baseline Requirements for the Issuance and Management of >> Publicly-Trusted TLS Server Certificates" based on Version 2.0.4 as >> specified in the following redline: >> >> - >> >> https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/compare/c4a34fe2292022e0a04ba66b5a85df75907ac2a2...f6a90e2a652fbb7a2d62a976b70f4af3adce8dae >> >> Motion Ends >> >> This ballot proposes a Final Maintenance Guideline. The procedure for >> approval of this ballot is as follows: >> Discussion (at least 7 days) >> >> - Start time: 2024-04-25 16:30:00 UTC >> - End time: on or after 2024-05-02 16:30:00 UTC >> >> Vote for approval (7 days) >> >> - Start time: TBD >> - End time: TBD >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
