<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Georgia;
panose-1:2 4 5 2 5 4 5 2 3 3;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Times New Roman \(Body CS\)";
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Georgia",serif;
color:windowtext;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Georgia",serif'>I would recommend just a note on the EVG page indicating that due to an oversight, v1.5.3 wasn’t published properly and was superseded by 1.5.4 (and completely adopted by the go-forward re-adoption ballot). If anyone happens to have a copy of v1.5.3 lying around, it’d be easy to republish, but since we don’t need it for anything, reconstructing it is probably more effort than it’s worth at this point. <o:p></o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Consolas;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Consolas;color:black'>-- <br>Jos Purvis (</span><a href="mailto:jopurvis@cisco.com"><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Consolas;color:#954F72'>jopurvis@cisco.com</span></a><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Consolas;color:black'>)<br>.:|:.:|:. cisco systems | Cryptographic Services<br>PGP: 0xFD802FEE07D19105 | Controls and Trust Verification</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Georgia",serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Georgia",serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'>From: </span></b><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'>Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com><br><b>Date: </b>Wednesday, June 10, 2020 at 3:06 PM<br><b>To: </b>CABF Server Cert WG <servercert-wg@cabforum.org><br><b>Cc: </b>Dean Coclin <dean.coclin@digicert.com>, "Jos Purvis (jopurvis)" <jopurvis@cisco.com>, "Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA)" <dzacharo@harica.gr>, Wayne Thayer <wthayer@gmail.com><br><b>Subject: </b>Missing ballot (and EVG revision) from the CABF website?<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>When looking at <a href="https://cabforum.org/extended-validation/">https://cabforum.org/extended-validation/</a> , I don't see an EVG 1.5.3<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Yet if you look at the changelog history, you'll see EVG 1.5.3 was associated with Ballot 144, which was voted on in 2015-02 (see <a href="https://oldportal.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2015-February/thread.html">https://oldportal.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2015-February/thread.html</a> ) and as documented on our webpage <a href="https://cabforum.org/2015/02/18/ballot-144-validation-rules-dot-onion-names/">https://cabforum.org/2015/02/18/ballot-144-validation-rules-dot-onion-names/</a><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Ben had proposed Redlines (EVGs <a href="https://oldportal.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2015-February/005091.html">https://oldportal.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2015-February/005091.html</a> and BRGs <a href="https://oldportal.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2015-February/005093.html">https://oldportal.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2015-February/005093.html</a> ), and we'd posted v1.2.4 of the BRs that resulted from Ballot 144 at <a href="https://cabforum.org/baseline-requirements-documents/">https://cabforum.org/baseline-requirements-documents/</a> , but I'm not seeing an EVG 1.5.3<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>I looked through the mail archives and this was during the period where review notices weren't being sent, so I didn't find any review notice with the document. I also didn't find a final copy of the document, beyond that thread above.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Not trying to pick at old issues, since we largely resolved these with the "readoption" ballot on a go-forward, but should we try to create a v1.5.3 for the website? Or just add a note that due to an oversight, it wasn't published, but refer to Ballot 144 for the text?<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Also apologies if I overlooked something blindingly obvious :)<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></body></html>