<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2019-09-03 6:50 μ.μ., Ryan Sleevi
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CACvaWvYJzRCgcLYMdJAOYKvTdtUsgSdMogGjjArPUiAU3mBjtQ@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 11:36
AM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) via Public <<a
href="mailto:public@cabforum.org" moz-do-not-send="true">public@cabforum.org</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div> Dear Members,<br>
<br>
Following up on recent discussions,<br>
<ul>
<li>At the <a
href="https://cabforum.org/2019/08/16/minutes-for-ca-browser-forum-f2f-meeting-47-thessaloniki-12-13-june-2019/#Instructions-for-creating-ballots-and-challenges-for-moving-canonical-versions-of-all-Guidelines-to-GitHub"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">last F2F in
Thessaloniki</a></li>
<li>On the <a
href="https://cabforum.org/pipermail/servercert-wg/2019-August/000896.html"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">server
certificate WG list</a></li>
</ul>
<p>and since the current Bylaws (version 2.2) do not
address how the Chair or Vice-Chair could make any
changes whatsoever to the Final Guidelines or Final
Maintenance Guidelines, I would like to prepare a ballot
with some administrative language that would allow the
Forum or WG Chair (or Vice-Chair) to make some changes
to Final Guidelines and Final Maintenance Guidelines.
Please note that these practices are already in place
and have been followed for years without any "official"
approval from the Forum or a WG and without having
received any objections by the Membership.</p>
<p>Since this is language that would normally be in the
Bylaws, and while we have <a
href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EtrIy3F5cPge0_M-C8J6fe72KcVI8H5Q_2S6S31ynU0"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">other issues
pending to discuss</a>, I would like to propose to
ballot these issues separately and once we collect a
few, we could update the Bylaws including language for
all these separate issues. I understand that we don't
want to make too frequent changes to our Bylaws because
it involves legal reviews that take additional time,
etc. <br>
</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>I don't believe this can be solely done by a change to
the Bylaws; I believe it would have to be the Bylaws and the
SCWG Charter, since the SCWG would need to designate what
part of the Final Guidelines / Final Maintenance Guidelines
it adopts are informative and may be edited as such. Does
that match your understanding?</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p> </p>
<p>I would like to start with what seems to be an
uncontroversial issue. There seems to be consensus to
allow the Chair or Vice-Chair to update informative
(non-normative) sections of the Guidelines. Here is a
list of changes that the Chair or Vice-Chair should be
allowed to do on a Final Guideline or Final Maintenance
Guideline before it is published on our public web site
and without requiring a ballot procedure: <br>
</p>
<ol>
<li>The cover page, <br>
</li>
</ol>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>This is only for the version number, right? <br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Version and effective date, and probably the year in the "Copyright"
footer.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CACvaWvYJzRCgcLYMdJAOYKvTdtUsgSdMogGjjArPUiAU3mBjtQ@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<ol>
<li> <br>
</li>
<li>The Table of Contents</li>
<li>Headers/Footers with version numbers and page
numbers<br>
</li>
<li>The table with document revisions or Document
History<br>
</li>
<li>The table with Relevant Dates, unless the ballot
explicitly updates this table</li>
</ol>
<p>I would also recommend removing the first paragraph of
the EV Guidelines which reads:</p>
<p>"This version 1.7.0 represents the Extended Validation
Guidelines, as adopted by the CA/Browser Forum as of
Ballot SC17, passed by the Forum on 21 May 2019 and
effective as of 21 June 2019." I believe it's redundant
because this information is included in the revision
history table and the public web site.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>Note that the current "effective as of" refers to the
document's adoption per our IP review period completing,
while the Document History table refers to the effective
date of various provisions. You can see this in some of the
dates within the existing history table; for example, it
wasn't until Ballot 198 (Version 1.6.3) that the Effective
Date began aligning with the completion of the IP Review
Period, except it then diverged by Ballot 217 (version
1.6.8)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I highlight this, because there's two elements / two
updates:</div>
<div>1) The version circulated for IP review, which presumably
will only be missing the "Effective" date</div>
<div>2) The version posted to the Website, which would then be
updated following the adoption</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Does that match your understanding?</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
The correct "effective date" is when the IP review is complete and
no essential claims are filed. This is the only date that should be
in the "Effective" column of table 1.2.1. The "Adopted" column
should be the date of the initial voting when the ballot passed. If
you check version 1.6.4, you can see that we had 3 ballots, 3
different "Adopted" dates but one "Effective" date when the IP
review was completed. We usually first send the results to the
public list so documents are published on the web site a bit later.
However, the date of publication on the web site is not related to
the effective date of the document. Does this answer the question?<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CACvaWvYJzRCgcLYMdJAOYKvTdtUsgSdMogGjjArPUiAU3mBjtQ@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p>Are there any comments or additional changes that
members would like to see before I start drafting some
language? I plan on having something ready by the end of
next week.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>From past discussion, but not specified here, it would
seem that implicit in this is a desire to allow the Chair or
Vice-Chair to determine the versioning, and prohibiting it
via Ballot. Is that correct? That is, only #5 on your list
is reserved as "unless the ballot explicitly updates this
table", so it's unclear if it's meant that the first four
can override a ballot.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I deliberately left this out because I would like to discuss the
document version issue on a separate ballot because I am not sure
how controversial or not it would be. At this point, I would not
like the first four to be overridden by the ballot. Is that ok, for
now?<br>
<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
Dimitris.<br>
</body>
</html>