Hi Wendy, I would definitely go for c) because the documents are overall not standardized enough to do any kind of automatic parsing where a) or b) would maybe help.
Rgds Roman From: Servercert-wg <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Wendy Brown - QT3LB-C via Servercert-wg Sent: Donnerstag, 9. Mai 2024 16:58 To: Aaron Gable <[email protected]> Cc: CA/B Forum Server Certificate WG Public Discussion List <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Servercert-wg] Ballot SC-74 - Clarify CP/CPS structure according to RFC 3647 OK - then I have a question for all those voting on SC74 (as an Associate member rep, I do not have a vote) How do you interpret the proposed new language: include at least every section and subsection defined in section 6 of RFC 3647 Does this mean: a) that the section and subsection headers have to exactly match the text in RFC 3647 including its use of capitalization, or b) just that the words must be the same or c) you just have to have the same numbering and the title can be slightly different as long as it covers the intended content? Sorry to not have asked this during the discussion period, until I saw the output of the linter Aaron prepared, it didn't occur to me that anyone would have interpreted it as the capitalization had to match. thanks, Wendy Wendy Brown Supporting GSA FPKIMA Technical Liaison Protiviti Government Services 703-965-2990 (cell) On Thu, May 9, 2024 at 10:33 AM Aaron Gable <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I think that is a question to be taken up with the authors of SC-74, and with the root programs. In the interest of caution, I think this linting tool should err on the side of strictness. It is open source, however, so you are of course free to modify it for your own preferences. Aaron On Thu, May 9, 2024, 04:57 Wendy Brown - QT3LB-C <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Aaron - Can I suggest that maybe the comparison should be done in a case blind fashion? For example, requiring the headers for the subsections of 1.3 to have the second word lower case when it is common practice to refer to Certification Authorities as CAs and Registration Authorities as RAs, etc. just makes the document inconsistent. I understand the goal is to try to make comparisons easier, but requiring all Public Trusted CAs have these style inconsistencies in their own documentation seems like a step too far. thanks, Wendy Wendy Brown Supporting GSA FPKIMA Technical Liaison Protiviti Government Services 703-965-2990 (cell) On Wed, May 8, 2024 at 6:06 PM Aaron Gable via Servercert-wg <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Of course! Done: https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/issues/513 On Wed, May 8, 2024 at 8:37 AM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) <[email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/servercert-wg _______________________________________________ Servercert-wg mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/servercert-wg
_______________________________________________ Servercert-wg mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/servercert-wg
