[Cscwg-public] Pandocifying and RFC 3647-ing the CSBRs

[Dean Coclin]

Here are the files from that email.

 

From: Cscwg-public <cscwg-public-bounces at cabforum.org> On Behalf Of Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) via Cscwg-public
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2021 2:00 PM
To: cscwg-public at cabforum.org
Subject: Re: [Cscwg-public] Pandocifying and RFC 3647-ing the CSBRs

 


Hi Corey,

Thanks for preparing the tooling and empty markdown file for the CSBRs.

We have discussed this conversion in the past and I was able to find the most recent email <https://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/cscwg-public/2020-June/000100.html>  from the archive. This message contains a conversion matrix that Gerv put together when the Forum first converted the BRs into RFC 3647 format. It would help using that as an initial rule of thumb and fine tune afterwards.

Does that help?

I can work with you and other volunteers to convert the current CSBRs into markdown and 3647 format.


Thanks,
Dimitris.




On 25/6/2021 10:22 μ.μ., Corey Bonnell via Cscwg-public wrote:

Hello,

As we discussed recently, it would be good to start progress on moving our CSBRs to Pandoc as well as RFC 3647 format. To start, I updated the code-signing Github repo with integrating the Pandoc tooling support and added the Markdown RFC 3647 template (https://github.com/cabforum/code-signing/pull/2). It appears the template document builds correctly, so I think we’re in a good place from a tooling standpoint to start iterating on the document itself.

 

I think the next step is to go through the current version of the CSBRs and transfer content from each section into the appropriate section in the RFC 3647 document. I converted the Word document we currently use to Pandoc to facilitate this process (it’s attached to this email). While some of the content transfer will be straightforward, I imagine that other sections will be tricky and non-obvious. Since this effort will likely take a good deal of time, I don’t think we should hold up ballots waiting for this work to complete.

 

Given the large scope of work, it would be great to have several people working on this. Additionally, it would be good to hear if anyone has any alternative ideas on how we should go about Pandocifying the CSBRs and moving to RFC 3647 format.

 

Perhaps we can schedule some time on the next call to discuss further.

 

Thanks,

Corey

 





_______________________________________________
Cscwg-public mailing list
Cscwg-public at cabforum.org <mailto:Cscwg-public at cabforum.org> 
https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/cscwg-public

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/cscwg-public/attachments/20210630/49a71703/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: BR-3647 Mapping.xlsx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet
Size: 30193 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/cscwg-public/attachments/20210630/49a71703/attachment-0002.xlsx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: BRv1.3-to-v.1.2.xlsx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet
Size: 34158 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/cscwg-public/attachments/20210630/49a71703/attachment-0003.xlsx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: RFC3647_Comparison_Table_for_Baseline_Requirements.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 151776 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/cscwg-public/attachments/20210630/49a71703/attachment-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4916 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/cscwg-public/attachments/20210630/49a71703/attachment-0001.p7s>