<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
Thanks for the additional review, it was really hard to make these
updates in the existing word version. Just for clarification
purposes, I used the following link:<br>
<ul>
<li><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://github.com/cabforum/documents/compare/master@%7B10-25-19%7D...sleevi:2019-07-Cleanups@%7B10-25-19%7D">https://github.com/cabforum/documents/compare/master@%7B10-25-19%7D...sleevi:2019-07-Cleanups@%7B10-25-19%7D</a></li>
</ul>
<p>that was the red-line in the SC24 ballot. The complete file with
all changes applied should be <br>
</p>
<ul>
<li><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://github.com/sleevi/cabforum-docs/blob/b0afc30fc5a4bfc383965349610437a843230417/docs/BR.md">https://github.com/sleevi/cabforum-docs/blob/b0afc30fc5a4bfc383965349610437a843230417/docs/BR.md</a></li>
</ul>
<p>So, I am trying to compare the "expected" Markdown with the word
file.<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2019-11-19 3:33 π.μ., Ryan Sleevi
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CACvaWvYXvnRYOHF8VSaQ-jo41TS+wypXNOHDyGQE791=Q9DQKg@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">Capturing notes that were shared off-list by
various folks, and reposting for visibility. Thanks for doing
this, Dimitris, as this definitely highlights the ease to be had
of having GitHub, PRs, and automagically generated PDFs :)
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><b>Requiring Correction</b>:</div>
<div>Section 1.6.1: This fails to remove the definition for
"Effective Date" (as shown in <a
href="https://github.com/cabforum/documents/pull/145/files"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://github.com/cabforum/documents/pull/145/files</a> ,
based on what the Ballot was)</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Fixed.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CACvaWvYXvnRYOHF8VSaQ-jo41TS+wypXNOHDyGQE791=Q9DQKg@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>Section <a href="http://3.2.2.7" moz-do-not-send="true">3.2.2.7</a>:
This appears to renumber the entries, leading #4 to have two
entries and #5 to have no entry. This was not touched by
either ballot, AFAICT. This may be a PDF diff bug?</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
It may be an issue with the PDF diff but the resulting text is
exactly the same comparing the Markdown with the pdf redline I
posted. I marked it as being the same so it doesn't appear in the
redline. I applied the same fix to other numbered/bulleted item
sections that were not touched by the ballot.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CACvaWvYXvnRYOHF8VSaQ-jo41TS+wypXNOHDyGQE791=Q9DQKg@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>Section <a href="http://3.2.2.8" moz-do-not-send="true">3.2.2.8</a>:
The first paragraph, regarding Effective Date, was not
removed.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Fixed.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CACvaWvYXvnRYOHF8VSaQ-jo41TS+wypXNOHDyGQE791=Q9DQKg@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>Section 4.1.2 was not updated to refer to Section 4.2.1,
and continues to incorrectly refer to Section 3.3.1; this
was captured in <a
href="https://github.com/cabforum/documents/pull/145/files"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://github.com/cabforum/documents/pull/145/files</a></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Fixed.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CACvaWvYXvnRYOHF8VSaQ-jo41TS+wypXNOHDyGQE791=Q9DQKg@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>Section 6.1.5.1 appears to place an asterisk (for the
footnote) as a footer for 6.1.5, rather than indented to
6.1.5.1</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CACvaWvYXvnRYOHF8VSaQ-jo41TS+wypXNOHDyGQE791=Q9DQKg@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div> - Same for 6.1.5.2 and 6.1.5.3</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I added a tab before each asterisk to align under the bullets.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CACvaWvYXvnRYOHF8VSaQ-jo41TS+wypXNOHDyGQE791=Q9DQKg@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><b>Uncertain</b>:</div>
<div>The diff for 7.1.4+ appears to be mangled. Currently,
version 1.6.6 shows that "Name Forms" is in Section 7.1.4,
which is the same as the Markdown. The diff appears to show
it was 7.1.5, and is now being corrected to 7.1.4 - but
that's not correct.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Word took a weird decision to change the heading and renumbered the
section when I added the new text. I reverted it back and added the
text in a different sequence which didn't change the numbering of
the following sections. Looks fixed.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CACvaWvYXvnRYOHF8VSaQ-jo41TS+wypXNOHDyGQE791=Q9DQKg@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><b>Not Requiring Correction in the PDF, but otherwise
noted:</b></div>
<div>Section 7.1.4.1 is listed in the PDF as "Issuer
Information", matching the 1.6.6 PDF, while in the Markdown,
it's listed as "Issuing CA Certificate Subject". As best I
can tell, this was a typo introduce in the Markdown 4 years
ago, in <a
href="https://github.com/cabforum/documents/commit/661505addb9c5a0e9f35bcbc98f0629e26c3842d#diff-84a0a987677aabc0ae38abb27f95fb6d"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://github.com/cabforum/documents/commit/661505addb9c5a0e9f35bcbc98f0629e26c3842d#diff-84a0a987677aabc0ae38abb27f95fb6d</a> ,
related to Ballot 146 - <a
href="https://cabforum.org/2015/04/16/ballot-146-convert-baseline-requirements-to-rfc-3647-framework/"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://cabforum.org/2015/04/16/ballot-146-convert-baseline-requirements-to-rfc-3647-framework/</a> . </div>
<div> - Note: The above appears to only be an issue with the
GitHub/Markdown, and not with the PDF or what was balloted
in this or previous ballots</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Thanks for digging up this information. I will submit a PR to update
BRs 1.6.6 with this fix as it has been approved by an earlier
ballot.<br>
<br>
Attached is the v2 of the Baseline Requirements <span
style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Draft
Guideline.</span><br>
<br>
In light of these changes, I would like to extend the review period
by 1 day, ending December 19, 2019.<br>
<br>
<br>
Dimitris.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>