From sleevi at google.com  Wed Jul  1 09:26:21 2020
From: sleevi at google.com (Ryan Sleevi)
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 12:26:21 -0400
Subject: [Infrastructure] GitHub permissions & RFC 3647 Template
Message-ID: <CACvaWva9K=CQC=ZXAWOgiro=uPBRq+B76qPgHz4EqzQQsCAkaA@mail.gmail.com>

Hey Ben,

Not to try and call you out, but I noticed you directly committed
https://github.com/cabforum/documents/commit/1e60f228aefc9dabd20ab3ccd39c295c1b895aec
to
the master without any form of pull request or review (AFAICT)

That's definitely not ideal, especially because it's unfortunately not
valid markdown.

We currently have branch protections enabled to prevent this, but I think
you may have been able to bypass these protections because we don't have
them enforced for administrators.

I think we should enforce them for administrators (via Settings -> Branches
-> Branch Protection -> Master -> "Include Administrators"). I realize this
may make it harder to make infrastructure-related changes, but that seems
to be a net win, overall. Do other folks agree?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20200701/2fc2e6fa/attachment.html>

From bwilson at mozilla.com  Wed Jul  1 10:05:33 2020
From: bwilson at mozilla.com (Ben Wilson)
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 11:05:33 -0600
Subject: [Infrastructure] GitHub permissions & RFC 3647 Template
In-Reply-To: <CACvaWva9K=CQC=ZXAWOgiro=uPBRq+B76qPgHz4EqzQQsCAkaA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACvaWva9K=CQC=ZXAWOgiro=uPBRq+B76qPgHz4EqzQQsCAkaA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CA+1gtabhFurJQ+PJZSFUNNWrMg2cLK-N9KXfXd6eJV98DqacVg@mail.gmail.com>

Yeah, I agree.

On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 10:26 AM Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com> wrote:

> Hey Ben,
>
> Not to try and call you out, but I noticed you directly committed
> https://github.com/cabforum/documents/commit/1e60f228aefc9dabd20ab3ccd39c295c1b895aec to
> the master without any form of pull request or review (AFAICT)
>
> That's definitely not ideal, especially because it's unfortunately not
> valid markdown.
>
> We currently have branch protections enabled to prevent this, but I think
> you may have been able to bypass these protections because we don't have
> them enforced for administrators.
>
> I think we should enforce them for administrators (via Settings ->
> Branches -> Branch Protection -> Master -> "Include Administrators"). I
> realize this may make it harder to make infrastructure-related changes, but
> that seems to be a net win, overall. Do other folks agree?
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20200701/ff7287e4/attachment.html>

From bwilson at mozilla.com  Wed Jul  1 10:46:40 2020
From: bwilson at mozilla.com (Ben Wilson)
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 11:46:40 -0600
Subject: [Infrastructure] GitHub permissions & RFC 3647 Template
In-Reply-To: <CA+1gtabhFurJQ+PJZSFUNNWrMg2cLK-N9KXfXd6eJV98DqacVg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACvaWva9K=CQC=ZXAWOgiro=uPBRq+B76qPgHz4EqzQQsCAkaA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+1gtabhFurJQ+PJZSFUNNWrMg2cLK-N9KXfXd6eJV98DqacVg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CA+1gtaY=dCC7ELKKQdcgODq3hzgXh2EJD+kbrdAVjh0fthiH_w@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Ryan,
I have the setting window open in Github.  Should I mark that checkbox
(" Enforce
all configured restrictions above for administrators.")?
Thanks,
Ben

On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 11:05 AM Ben Wilson <bwilson at mozilla.com> wrote:

> Yeah, I agree.
>
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 10:26 AM Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com> wrote:
>
>> Hey Ben,
>>
>> Not to try and call you out, but I noticed you directly committed
>> https://github.com/cabforum/documents/commit/1e60f228aefc9dabd20ab3ccd39c295c1b895aec to
>> the master without any form of pull request or review (AFAICT)
>>
>> That's definitely not ideal, especially because it's unfortunately not
>> valid markdown.
>>
>> We currently have branch protections enabled to prevent this, but I think
>> you may have been able to bypass these protections because we don't have
>> them enforced for administrators.
>>
>> I think we should enforce them for administrators (via Settings ->
>> Branches -> Branch Protection -> Master -> "Include Administrators"). I
>> realize this may make it harder to make infrastructure-related changes, but
>> that seems to be a net win, overall. Do other folks agree?
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20200701/6782280b/attachment.html>

From sleevi at google.com  Wed Jul  1 10:52:10 2020
From: sleevi at google.com (Ryan Sleevi)
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 13:52:10 -0400
Subject: [Infrastructure] GitHub permissions & RFC 3647 Template
In-Reply-To: <CA+1gtaY=dCC7ELKKQdcgODq3hzgXh2EJD+kbrdAVjh0fthiH_w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACvaWva9K=CQC=ZXAWOgiro=uPBRq+B76qPgHz4EqzQQsCAkaA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+1gtabhFurJQ+PJZSFUNNWrMg2cLK-N9KXfXd6eJV98DqacVg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+1gtaY=dCC7ELKKQdcgODq3hzgXh2EJD+kbrdAVjh0fthiH_w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACvaWvYzwS3q_sfFhjRvxNzt+vnKvf2mTWW8qkNDDvDQedcP7Q@mail.gmail.com>

I wanted to hear from other members, especially since many of the GitHub
administrators are on the list, before unilaterally making any changes :)

On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 1:46 PM Ben Wilson <bwilson at mozilla.com> wrote:

> Hi Ryan,
> I have the setting window open in Github.  Should I mark that checkbox (" Enforce
> all configured restrictions above for administrators.")?
> Thanks,
> Ben
>
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 11:05 AM Ben Wilson <bwilson at mozilla.com> wrote:
>
>> Yeah, I agree.
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 10:26 AM Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hey Ben,
>>>
>>> Not to try and call you out, but I noticed you directly committed
>>> https://github.com/cabforum/documents/commit/1e60f228aefc9dabd20ab3ccd39c295c1b895aec to
>>> the master without any form of pull request or review (AFAICT)
>>>
>>> That's definitely not ideal, especially because it's unfortunately not
>>> valid markdown.
>>>
>>> We currently have branch protections enabled to prevent this, but I
>>> think you may have been able to bypass these protections because we don't
>>> have them enforced for administrators.
>>>
>>> I think we should enforce them for administrators (via Settings ->
>>> Branches -> Branch Protection -> Master -> "Include Administrators"). I
>>> realize this may make it harder to make infrastructure-related changes, but
>>> that seems to be a net win, overall. Do other folks agree?
>>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20200701/80ec1daa/attachment.html>

From jopurvis at cisco.com  Wed Jul  1 11:01:56 2020
From: jopurvis at cisco.com (Jos Purvis (jopurvis))
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 18:01:56 +0000
Subject: [Infrastructure] GitHub permissions & RFC 3647 Template
In-Reply-To: <CACvaWvYzwS3q_sfFhjRvxNzt+vnKvf2mTWW8qkNDDvDQedcP7Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACvaWva9K=CQC=ZXAWOgiro=uPBRq+B76qPgHz4EqzQQsCAkaA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+1gtabhFurJQ+PJZSFUNNWrMg2cLK-N9KXfXd6eJV98DqacVg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+1gtaY=dCC7ELKKQdcgODq3hzgXh2EJD+kbrdAVjh0fthiH_w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACvaWvYzwS3q_sfFhjRvxNzt+vnKvf2mTWW8qkNDDvDQedcP7Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <120D1FB4-1E1F-4200-BB0B-ECB9CEDEFA2D@cisco.com>

I definitely agree: at most, it would require two administrators to make a quick change like that, which seems like a good idea. Four-eyes principle FTW. ? 

 

 

-- 
Jos Purvis (jopurvis at cisco.com)
.:|:.:|:. cisco systems | Cryptographic Services
PGP: 0xFD802FEE07D19105 | Controls and Trust Verification

 

 

From: Infrastructure <infrastructure-bounces at cabforum.org> on behalf of Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com>
Date: Wednesday, July 1, 2020 at 1:53 PM
To: Ben Wilson <bwilson at mozilla.com>
Cc: "infrastructure at cabforum.org" <infrastructure at cabforum.org>
Subject: Re: [Infrastructure] GitHub permissions & RFC 3647 Template

 

I wanted to hear from other members, especially since many of the GitHub administrators are on the list, before unilaterally making any changes :)

 

On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 1:46 PM Ben Wilson <bwilson at mozilla.com> wrote:

Hi Ryan,

I have the setting window open in Github.  Should I mark that checkbox (" Enforce all configured restrictions above for administrators.")?

Thanks,

Ben

 

On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 11:05 AM Ben Wilson <bwilson at mozilla.com> wrote:

Yeah, I agree. 

 

On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 10:26 AM Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com> wrote:

Hey Ben,

 

Not to try and call you out, but I noticed you directly committed https://github.com/cabforum/documents/commit/1e60f228aefc9dabd20ab3ccd39c295c1b895aec to the master without any form of pull request or review (AFAICT)

 

That's definitely not ideal, especially because it's unfortunately not valid markdown.

 

We currently have branch protections enabled to prevent this, but I think you may have been able to bypass these protections because we don't have them enforced for administrators.

 

I think we should enforce them for administrators (via Settings -> Branches -> Branch Protection -> Master -> "Include Administrators"). I realize this may make it harder to make infrastructure-related changes, but that seems to be a net win, overall. Do other folks agree?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20200701/1574d862/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3699 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20200701/1574d862/attachment-0001.p7s>

From tim.hollebeek at digicert.com  Wed Jul  1 12:11:02 2020
From: tim.hollebeek at digicert.com (Tim Hollebeek)
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 19:11:02 +0000
Subject: [Infrastructure] GitHub permissions & RFC 3647 Template
In-Reply-To: <120D1FB4-1E1F-4200-BB0B-ECB9CEDEFA2D@cisco.com>
References: <CACvaWva9K=CQC=ZXAWOgiro=uPBRq+B76qPgHz4EqzQQsCAkaA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+1gtabhFurJQ+PJZSFUNNWrMg2cLK-N9KXfXd6eJV98DqacVg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+1gtaY=dCC7ELKKQdcgODq3hzgXh2EJD+kbrdAVjh0fthiH_w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACvaWvYzwS3q_sfFhjRvxNzt+vnKvf2mTWW8qkNDDvDQedcP7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <120D1FB4-1E1F-4200-BB0B-ECB9CEDEFA2D@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <MN2PR14MB3167232D86BE3573AF815916836C0@MN2PR14MB3167.namprd14.prod.outlook.com>

I agree.

 

-Tim

 

From: Infrastructure <infrastructure-bounces at cabforum.org> On Behalf Of Jos Purvis (jopurvis)
Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2020 2:02 PM
To: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com>; Ben Wilson <bwilson at mozilla.com>
Cc: infrastructure at cabforum.org
Subject: Re: [Infrastructure] GitHub permissions & RFC 3647 Template

 

I definitely agree: at most, it would require two administrators to make a quick change like that, which seems like a good idea. Four-eyes principle FTW. ? 

 

 

-- 
Jos Purvis ( <mailto:jopurvis at cisco.com> jopurvis at cisco.com)
.:|:.:|:. cisco systems | Cryptographic Services
PGP: 0xFD802FEE07D19105 | Controls and Trust Verification

 

 

From: Infrastructure <infrastructure-bounces at cabforum.org <mailto:infrastructure-bounces at cabforum.org> > on behalf of Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com <mailto:sleevi at google.com> >
Date: Wednesday, July 1, 2020 at 1:53 PM
To: Ben Wilson <bwilson at mozilla.com <mailto:bwilson at mozilla.com> >
Cc: "infrastructure at cabforum.org <mailto:infrastructure at cabforum.org> " <infrastructure at cabforum.org <mailto:infrastructure at cabforum.org> >
Subject: Re: [Infrastructure] GitHub permissions & RFC 3647 Template

 

I wanted to hear from other members, especially since many of the GitHub administrators are on the list, before unilaterally making any changes :)

 

On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 1:46 PM Ben Wilson <bwilson at mozilla.com <mailto:bwilson at mozilla.com> > wrote:

Hi Ryan,

I have the setting window open in Github.  Should I mark that checkbox (" Enforce all configured restrictions above for administrators.")?

Thanks,

Ben

 

On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 11:05 AM Ben Wilson <bwilson at mozilla.com <mailto:bwilson at mozilla.com> > wrote:

Yeah, I agree. 

 

On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 10:26 AM Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com <mailto:sleevi at google.com> > wrote:

Hey Ben,

 

Not to try and call you out, but I noticed you directly committed https://github.com/cabforum/documents/commit/1e60f228aefc9dabd20ab3ccd39c295c1b895aec to the master without any form of pull request or review (AFAICT)

 

That's definitely not ideal, especially because it's unfortunately not valid markdown.

 

We currently have branch protections enabled to prevent this, but I think you may have been able to bypass these protections because we don't have them enforced for administrators.

 

I think we should enforce them for administrators (via Settings -> Branches -> Branch Protection -> Master -> "Include Administrators"). I realize this may make it harder to make infrastructure-related changes, but that seems to be a net win, overall. Do other folks agree?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20200701/9f75d631/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4940 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20200701/9f75d631/attachment.p7s>

From wthayer at gmail.com  Wed Jul  1 12:17:09 2020
From: wthayer at gmail.com (Wayne Thayer)
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 13:17:09 -0600
Subject: [Infrastructure] GitHub permissions & RFC 3647 Template
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR14MB3167232D86BE3573AF815916836C0@MN2PR14MB3167.namprd14.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CACvaWva9K=CQC=ZXAWOgiro=uPBRq+B76qPgHz4EqzQQsCAkaA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+1gtabhFurJQ+PJZSFUNNWrMg2cLK-N9KXfXd6eJV98DqacVg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+1gtaY=dCC7ELKKQdcgODq3hzgXh2EJD+kbrdAVjh0fthiH_w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACvaWvYzwS3q_sfFhjRvxNzt+vnKvf2mTWW8qkNDDvDQedcP7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <120D1FB4-1E1F-4200-BB0B-ECB9CEDEFA2D@cisco.com>
 <MN2PR14MB3167232D86BE3573AF815916836C0@MN2PR14MB3167.namprd14.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <CAPh8bk8p0_6sd9JmdXF7RVdQ7PNA6s_m9wwgqL=bdfk9MQTopQ@mail.gmail.com>

+1

On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 12:11 PM Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com>
wrote:

> I agree.
>
>
>
> -Tim
>
>
>
> *From:* Infrastructure <infrastructure-bounces at cabforum.org> *On Behalf
> Of *Jos Purvis (jopurvis)
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 1, 2020 2:02 PM
> *To:* Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com>; Ben Wilson <bwilson at mozilla.com>
> *Cc:* infrastructure at cabforum.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Infrastructure] GitHub permissions & RFC 3647 Template
>
>
>
> I definitely agree: at most, it would require two administrators to make a
> quick change like that, which seems like a good idea. Four-eyes principle
> FTW. ?
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Jos Purvis (jopurvis at cisco.com)
> .:|:.:|:. cisco systems | Cryptographic Services
> PGP: 0xFD802FEE07D19105 | Controls and Trust Verification
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Infrastructure <infrastructure-bounces at cabforum.org> on behalf of
> Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com>
> *Date: *Wednesday, July 1, 2020 at 1:53 PM
> *To: *Ben Wilson <bwilson at mozilla.com>
> *Cc: *"infrastructure at cabforum.org" <infrastructure at cabforum.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [Infrastructure] GitHub permissions & RFC 3647 Template
>
>
>
> I wanted to hear from other members, especially since many of the GitHub
> administrators are on the list, before unilaterally making any changes :)
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 1:46 PM Ben Wilson <bwilson at mozilla.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Ryan,
>
> I have the setting window open in Github.  Should I mark that checkbox ("
> Enforce all configured restrictions above for administrators.")?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ben
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 11:05 AM Ben Wilson <bwilson at mozilla.com> wrote:
>
> Yeah, I agree.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 10:26 AM Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com> wrote:
>
> Hey Ben,
>
>
>
> Not to try and call you out, but I noticed you directly committed
> https://github.com/cabforum/documents/commit/1e60f228aefc9dabd20ab3ccd39c295c1b895aec to
> the master without any form of pull request or review (AFAICT)
>
>
>
> That's definitely not ideal, especially because it's unfortunately not
> valid markdown.
>
>
>
> We currently have branch protections enabled to prevent this, but I think
> you may have been able to bypass these protections because we don't have
> them enforced for administrators.
>
>
>
> I think we should enforce them for administrators (via Settings ->
> Branches -> Branch Protection -> Master -> "Include Administrators"). I
> realize this may make it harder to make infrastructure-related changes, but
> that seems to be a net win, overall. Do other folks agree?
>
> _______________________________________________
> Infrastructure mailing list
> Infrastructure at cabforum.org
> https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20200701/0e967f1a/attachment-0001.html>

From sleevi at google.com  Wed Jul  1 12:38:21 2020
From: sleevi at google.com (Ryan Sleevi)
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 15:38:21 -0400
Subject: [Infrastructure] GitHub permissions & RFC 3647 Template
In-Reply-To: <CAPh8bk8p0_6sd9JmdXF7RVdQ7PNA6s_m9wwgqL=bdfk9MQTopQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACvaWva9K=CQC=ZXAWOgiro=uPBRq+B76qPgHz4EqzQQsCAkaA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+1gtabhFurJQ+PJZSFUNNWrMg2cLK-N9KXfXd6eJV98DqacVg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+1gtaY=dCC7ELKKQdcgODq3hzgXh2EJD+kbrdAVjh0fthiH_w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACvaWvYzwS3q_sfFhjRvxNzt+vnKvf2mTWW8qkNDDvDQedcP7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <120D1FB4-1E1F-4200-BB0B-ECB9CEDEFA2D@cisco.com>
 <MN2PR14MB3167232D86BE3573AF815916836C0@MN2PR14MB3167.namprd14.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAPh8bk8p0_6sd9JmdXF7RVdQ7PNA6s_m9wwgqL=bdfk9MQTopQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACvaWvb2+UxVSPcVPDLZ9zNyE+9J920L-Gtd+RtQvShEUEy03A@mail.gmail.com>

OK, I've enforced this for administrators as well, and to avoid any
mangling of history, enforced linear history (this only matters for merge
commit weirdness)

On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 3:17 PM Wayne Thayer <wthayer at gmail.com> wrote:

> +1
>
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 12:11 PM Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I agree.
>>
>>
>>
>> -Tim
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Infrastructure <infrastructure-bounces at cabforum.org> *On Behalf
>> Of *Jos Purvis (jopurvis)
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 1, 2020 2:02 PM
>> *To:* Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com>; Ben Wilson <bwilson at mozilla.com>
>> *Cc:* infrastructure at cabforum.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [Infrastructure] GitHub permissions & RFC 3647 Template
>>
>>
>>
>> I definitely agree: at most, it would require two administrators to make
>> a quick change like that, which seems like a good idea. Four-eyes principle
>> FTW. ?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jos Purvis (jopurvis at cisco.com)
>> .:|:.:|:. cisco systems | Cryptographic Services
>> PGP: 0xFD802FEE07D19105 | Controls and Trust Verification
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *Infrastructure <infrastructure-bounces at cabforum.org> on behalf
>> of Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com>
>> *Date: *Wednesday, July 1, 2020 at 1:53 PM
>> *To: *Ben Wilson <bwilson at mozilla.com>
>> *Cc: *"infrastructure at cabforum.org" <infrastructure at cabforum.org>
>> *Subject: *Re: [Infrastructure] GitHub permissions & RFC 3647 Template
>>
>>
>>
>> I wanted to hear from other members, especially since many of the GitHub
>> administrators are on the list, before unilaterally making any changes :)
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 1:46 PM Ben Wilson <bwilson at mozilla.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Ryan,
>>
>> I have the setting window open in Github.  Should I mark that checkbox ("
>> Enforce all configured restrictions above for administrators.")?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Ben
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 11:05 AM Ben Wilson <bwilson at mozilla.com> wrote:
>>
>> Yeah, I agree.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 10:26 AM Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hey Ben,
>>
>>
>>
>> Not to try and call you out, but I noticed you directly committed
>> https://github.com/cabforum/documents/commit/1e60f228aefc9dabd20ab3ccd39c295c1b895aec to
>> the master without any form of pull request or review (AFAICT)
>>
>>
>>
>> That's definitely not ideal, especially because it's unfortunately not
>> valid markdown.
>>
>>
>>
>> We currently have branch protections enabled to prevent this, but I think
>> you may have been able to bypass these protections because we don't have
>> them enforced for administrators.
>>
>>
>>
>> I think we should enforce them for administrators (via Settings ->
>> Branches -> Branch Protection -> Master -> "Include Administrators"). I
>> realize this may make it harder to make infrastructure-related changes, but
>> that seems to be a net win, overall. Do other folks agree?
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Infrastructure mailing list
>> Infrastructure at cabforum.org
>> https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20200701/a89cdc46/attachment.html>

From jopurvis at cisco.com  Mon Jul  6 12:20:27 2020
From: jopurvis at cisco.com (Jos Purvis (jopurvis))
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2020 19:20:27 +0000
Subject: [Infrastructure] Wiki Review
Message-ID: <97D7E695-5000-4EC0-B0C6-6B58B63D19E5@cisco.com>

After last week?s meeting and some intervening thought, I wanted to put this out there and let it percolate: we can discuss it here and then pick it up at the next meeting as well.

 

When we migrated to Dokuwiki a year ago (was it only a year? How time flies when you?re coping with global disasters?), much of the discussions around choice of software revolved around what people had experience operating, as the wiki options available were generally equivalent. We?ve now had a year in the new software to shake things out and find our feet, and I?ve definitely heard some issues people still have:
Uploading and linking media is difficult and non-obvious;
Dokuwiki basically forces wiki-markup editing mode rather than WYSIWYG, as the WYSIWYG plugin is unpredictably functional?indeed, that?s one thing that blocked us from upgrading to the latest Dokuwiki, as it?s not compatible with the new version and its author doesn?t seem inclined to fix that;
The markdown interpretation in Dokuwiki creates extra work in translating from email notes and Etherpad, as indentation and lists are prickly and particular about formatting.
 

Those are the issues I?m aware of. My questions are these:
Is the list of issues above complete? Are there others to be added? Should these be tracked in GH issues or similar?
How happy are we with Dokuwiki as a platform overall? Should we poll the Forum to find out their level of satisfaction with it?
How should we prioritize fixing these issues? Are they serious enough (individually or in aggregate) to warrant exploring moving to another platform?
 

Overall, I think there?s something to be said for polling the Forum for their satisfaction with our current suite of tools (GH, Dokuwiki, Webex), but I wanted to start with the wiki as the first step as it?s the one I?ve heard the most grumbling about.

 

 

-- 
Jos Purvis (jopurvis at cisco.com)
.:|:.:|:. cisco systems | Cryptographic Services
PGP: 0xFD802FEE07D19105 | Controls and Trust Verification

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20200706/55133e11/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3699 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20200706/55133e11/attachment.p7s>

From jopurvis at cisco.com  Tue Jul  7 11:38:10 2020
From: jopurvis at cisco.com (Jos Purvis (jopurvis))
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2020 18:38:10 +0000
Subject: [Infrastructure] New Meeting Link
Message-ID: <F261C223-171A-4850-B707-E3CB0A3A30C8@cisco.com>

It appears that Webex didn?t schedule the previous Infrastructure meeting as a recurring series, so I?ve re-created it. You should be getting a new meeting series announcement, and I?ll be adding that now to the wiki. Sorry for any confusion!

 

 

-- 
Jos Purvis (jopurvis at cisco.com)
.:|:.:|:. cisco systems | Cryptographic Services
PGP: 0xFD802FEE07D19105 | Controls and Trust Verification

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20200707/982a089b/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3699 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20200707/982a089b/attachment-0001.p7s>

From doug.beattie at globalsign.com  Fri Jul 10 09:27:33 2020
From: doug.beattie at globalsign.com (Doug Beattie)
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 16:27:33 +0000
Subject: [Infrastructure] Rendering Rich Diff in GitHub
Message-ID: <SG2PR03MB281392E78618F52D06EA36F0F0650@SG2PR03MB2813.apcprd03.prod.outlook.com>

I wanted to know if the Infrastructure group is working on resolving the 
issues with the display of rich text diff on the more complex ballots like the 
SC31.



https://github.com/cabforum/documents/pull/195/files



I apologize in advance if this has been asked and answered, just shoot me the 
link.


Thanks!


Doug





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20200710/26d5446b/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5688 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20200710/26d5446b/attachment.p7s>

From jopurvis at cisco.com  Fri Jul 10 11:36:33 2020
From: jopurvis at cisco.com (Jos Purvis (jopurvis))
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 18:36:33 +0000
Subject: [Infrastructure] Password management
Message-ID: <C7634843-D96A-4031-9BA0-7FD52EA8E356@cisco.com>

In working on a perennial to-do item to reduce the ?bus factor? around admin functions, I?m trying to create a password archive we can check in to a private Github repository, so that there?s a protected store of passwords available to those that need it. Two questions:
Right now, I?m going to include the following?let me know if something?s missing!
CABF AWS EC2 passwords and host passwords
List management passwords
Is there a particular tool that people would prefer to use (or not use)? KeePass is simple (but there are a lot of varieties that don?t all use the same format), or we can use Bitwarden or something more Github-friendly like pass (https://www.passwordstore.org/) that still has GUI/mobile clients available.
 

 

-- 
Jos Purvis (jopurvis at cisco.com)
.:|:.:|:. cisco systems | Cryptographic Services
PGP: 0xFD802FEE07D19105 | Controls and Trust Verification

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20200710/d8b22204/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3699 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20200710/d8b22204/attachment-0001.p7s>

From jopurvis at cisco.com  Mon Jul 13 11:10:19 2020
From: jopurvis at cisco.com (Jos Purvis (jopurvis))
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2020 18:10:19 +0000
Subject: [Infrastructure] Experiment with Github Projects
Message-ID: <C204F772-5B8A-44A9-8F5A-68245F89852A@cisco.com>

I tried creating a Github Project for us to track Infrastructure to-dos, here:

??????????? https://github.com/cabforum/documents/projects/1

 

I like the fact that you can both pull in issues from the GH project as a whole and create ?Notes? that aren?t actually issues, which means not everything on the board has to be tied to an issue. (To me, the ?issues? would be things relating directly to the documents in GH, while the ?notes? would be used for other work like the mailers and such that don?t have anything to do with GH itself.)

 

Take a look and let?s discuss! 

 

 

-- 
Jos Purvis (jopurvis at cisco.com)
.:|:.:|:. cisco systems | Cryptographic Services
PGP: 0xFD802FEE07D19105 | Controls and Trust Verification

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20200713/c08be868/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3699 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20200713/c08be868/attachment.p7s>

From bwilson at mozilla.com  Mon Jul 13 11:17:12 2020
From: bwilson at mozilla.com (Ben Wilson)
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2020 12:17:12 -0600
Subject: [Infrastructure] Experiment with Github Projects
In-Reply-To: <C204F772-5B8A-44A9-8F5A-68245F89852A@cisco.com>
References: <C204F772-5B8A-44A9-8F5A-68245F89852A@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <CA+1gtaa3RVMXy-FR+=HAgBtDRZ3u8+qeov714g+7Pvb7sBvrzA@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks, Jos

On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 12:10 PM Jos Purvis (jopurvis) <jopurvis at cisco.com>
wrote:

> I tried creating a Github Project for us to track Infrastructure to-dos,
> here:
>
>             https://github.com/cabforum/documents/projects/1
>
>
>
> I like the fact that you can both pull in issues from the GH project as a
> whole and create ?Notes? that aren?t actually issues, which means not
> everything on the board has to be tied to an issue. (To me, the ?issues?
> would be things relating directly to the documents in GH, while the ?notes?
> would be used for other work like the mailers and such that don?t have
> anything to do with GH itself.)
>
>
>
> Take a look and let?s discuss!
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Jos Purvis (jopurvis at cisco.com)
> .:|:.:|:. cisco systems | Cryptographic Services
> PGP: 0xFD802FEE07D19105 | Controls and Trust Verification
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Infrastructure mailing list
> Infrastructure at cabforum.org
> https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20200713/fe61dec9/attachment.html>

From jopurvis at cisco.com  Wed Jul 15 09:03:48 2020
From: jopurvis at cisco.com (Jos Purvis (jopurvis))
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 16:03:48 +0000
Subject: [Infrastructure] Draft minutes posted
Message-ID: <6385A0DA-24AA-4517-8823-4F44779EDC5C@cisco.com>

Enjoyed the meeting today! Draft minutes from this week are posted here:

??????????? https://wiki.cabforum.org/infra/mtg_202000715

 

?

 

 

-- 
Jos Purvis (jopurvis at cisco.com)
.:|:.:|:. cisco systems | Cryptographic Services
PGP: 0xFD802FEE07D19105 | Controls and Trust Verification

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20200715/86ebeb5c/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3699 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20200715/86ebeb5c/attachment.p7s>

From wthayer at gmail.com  Wed Jul 15 09:23:39 2020
From: wthayer at gmail.com (Wayne Thayer)
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 09:23:39 -0700
Subject: [Infrastructure] Maintaining GitHub Users
Message-ID: <CAPh8bk_FyPR8_KO6nbt-_6ZyoCb6Nfdv6nbsnKNdjgpZBTjiWA@mail.gmail.com>

On the Infrastructure subcommittee call today, we discussed the need to
maintain the users with permissions in our GitHub account, and it was
suggested that we track these users in the membership spreadsheet. I've
added a column to the SCWG tab of that spreadsheet for that purpose and
populated it with the GitHub user ids of members who have GitHub
permissions.

In the process, I identified four users who are no longer CAB Forum members
and removed them from the GitHub organization.

- Wayne
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20200715/413ed455/attachment.html>

From wthayer at gmail.com  Wed Jul 15 09:38:13 2020
From: wthayer at gmail.com (Wayne Thayer)
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 09:38:13 -0700
Subject: [Infrastructure] Disabling Password Reminders
Message-ID: <CAPh8bk_qmtm9LvLXU_oYfTuh3GnxL88L0HP0t=VG2A3bW25hZQ@mail.gmail.com>

The decision has been made to disable the monthly password reminder emails
from our mailing lists. I've gone ahead and made that change on management,
public, servercert-wg, validation, and codesigning (and reminders were
already off for questions).

If you have admin access to any of the other lists, please make this
change: under General Options, set "Send monthly password reminders?" to
No. Then please let me know what lists you changed.

Thanks,

Wayne
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20200715/746ea98b/attachment.html>

From wthayer at gmail.com  Wed Jul 15 11:19:41 2020
From: wthayer at gmail.com (Wayne Thayer)
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 11:19:41 -0700
Subject: [Infrastructure] Changing the default branch on
	https://github.com/documents/
Message-ID: <CAPh8bk-sAa0wo=qbJHoEYUJ1OQtrpb67QznyUBLgaKF=x0UNHg@mail.gmail.com>

On this morning's Infrastructure subcommittee call, we agreed to notify the
Forum and then change the default branch of our GitHub repo to "main", in
line with changes currently being made by many other organizations. This is
a relatively simple change
<https://www.hanselman.com/blog/EasilyRenameYourGitDefaultBranchFromMasterToMain.aspx>
that I agreed to implement on July 31. I'm planning to send the following
message to the public list on Friday - please respond with any concerns
with the plan or comments on the message by EOD tomorrow.

============================
To: cabfpub
Subject: Changing the default branch on https://github.com/documents/

As you may be aware, there is an effort underway to move away from naming
the default branch of GitHub repositories "master" [1]. This was discussed
by the Infrastructure subcommittee and it was agreed to change the name to
"main" in the CAB Forum documents repository on 31-July.

If you have cloned or forked the documents repository, you should update or
create a new one after this change has been made.

If you have built automation against this repository, you should change and
branch references from "master" to "main".

- Wayne

[1]
https://www.zdnet.com/article/github-to-replace-master-with-alternative-term-to-avoid-slavery-references/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20200715/701da0e4/attachment-0001.html>

From sleevi at google.com  Wed Jul 15 11:56:56 2020
From: sleevi at google.com (Ryan Sleevi)
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 14:56:56 -0400
Subject: [Infrastructure] Disabling Password Reminders
In-Reply-To: <CAPh8bk_qmtm9LvLXU_oYfTuh3GnxL88L0HP0t=VG2A3bW25hZQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPh8bk_qmtm9LvLXU_oYfTuh3GnxL88L0HP0t=VG2A3bW25hZQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACvaWvYTLzG_aezyWUyEzoDPnLr85yN4pvuyyOgETmmBHg4FPQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hey Wayne

Should we cross-post this to the management@ list?

On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 12:38 PM Wayne Thayer <wthayer at gmail.com> wrote:

> The decision has been made to disable the monthly password reminder emails
> from our mailing lists. I've gone ahead and made that change on management,
> public, servercert-wg, validation, and codesigning (and reminders were
> already off for questions).
>
> If you have admin access to any of the other lists, please make this
> change: under General Options, set "Send monthly password reminders?" to
> No. Then please let me know what lists you changed.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Wayne
> _______________________________________________
> Infrastructure mailing list
> Infrastructure at cabforum.org
> https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20200715/d7cdfaa7/attachment.html>

From wthayer at gmail.com  Wed Jul 15 17:46:28 2020
From: wthayer at gmail.com (Wayne Thayer)
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 17:46:28 -0700
Subject: [Infrastructure] Disabling Password Reminders
In-Reply-To: <CACvaWvYTLzG_aezyWUyEzoDPnLr85yN4pvuyyOgETmmBHg4FPQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPh8bk_qmtm9LvLXU_oYfTuh3GnxL88L0HP0t=VG2A3bW25hZQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACvaWvYTLzG_aezyWUyEzoDPnLr85yN4pvuyyOgETmmBHg4FPQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPh8bk-Qh8+5VrY9M46S=r4XCmhP1e-MZ55YDPSTPyUk9h+puw@mail.gmail.com>

I was thinking of a reply to the thread on the management list once
most/all of the lists have been updated.

On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 11:57 AM Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com> wrote:

> Hey Wayne
>
> Should we cross-post this to the management@ list?
>
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 12:38 PM Wayne Thayer <wthayer at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The decision has been made to disable the monthly password reminder
>> emails from our mailing lists. I've gone ahead and made that change on
>> management, public, servercert-wg, validation, and codesigning (and
>> reminders were already off for questions).
>>
>> If you have admin access to any of the other lists, please make this
>> change: under General Options, set "Send monthly password reminders?" to
>> No. Then please let me know what lists you changed.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Wayne
>> _______________________________________________
>> Infrastructure mailing list
>> Infrastructure at cabforum.org
>> https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20200715/dcc844a2/attachment.html>

From dzacharo at harica.gr  Thu Jul 16 22:56:43 2020
From: dzacharo at harica.gr (Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA))
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2020 08:56:43 +0300
Subject: [Infrastructure] Preparation of review period for SC30 and SC31
In-Reply-To: <77f354e2-de7f-1c64-fb8b-1d0f9f773c9b@harica.gr>
References: <77f354e2-de7f-1c64-fb8b-1d0f9f773c9b@harica.gr>
Message-ID: <ca627ffe-75b5-3da7-46a7-1754148a14b0@harica.gr>


The review period needs to start soon (by Tuesday 2020-07-21), and I 
need some help to get this ready using the new pandoc system. If the 
pandoc conversion doesn't work as expected, I will have to do everything 
manually using MS word.

Can someone please provide me with the docx version of the "existing" 
Baseline Requirements (or show me how to get it), so I can compare it 
against the docx version we currently use to produce the PDF of the BRs? 
This will be my first check.

Once I verify that there are no differences (other than formatting) with 
the current BRs, I will ask for the docx version produced by ballots 
SC30 and SC31 combined, unless someone shows me how to produce this 
combined docx version on my own.

Since we're doing this for the first time (relying so much on pandoc 
conversion for the review period) I will definitely need a second pair 
of eyes to confirm that the contents of the ballots are indeed 
incorporated into the produced combined docx/pdf that will be sent to 
the WG. This will probably be Wayne or Ryan (proposer of both ballots).


Thanks,
Dimitris.

From jopurvis at cisco.com  Fri Jul 17 07:50:28 2020
From: jopurvis at cisco.com (Jos Purvis (jopurvis))
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2020 14:50:28 +0000
Subject: [Infrastructure] Preparation of review period for SC30 and SC31
In-Reply-To: <ca627ffe-75b5-3da7-46a7-1754148a14b0@harica.gr>
References: <77f354e2-de7f-1c64-fb8b-1d0f9f773c9b@harica.gr>
 <ca627ffe-75b5-3da7-46a7-1754148a14b0@harica.gr>
Message-ID: <4DF2449B-4FE8-4E6B-826F-8057CAFE7728@cisco.com>

Hi Dimitris,

For the current version in Word format, you can fetch it from this link:
	https://cabforum-travis-artifacts.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/builds/master/BR.docx

That's the same link as the PDF from the front page of the CABF repository, but with the extension changed to docx (we need to update the README on the repository to reflect the new formats and whatnot!).

For the SC30 and SC31 ballots, the Travis build completed successfully, but it doesn't look like it uploaded the resulting artifacts to S3. Ryan, is that something we need to fix? (Looks like that used to be the default and isn't anymore?)

 
-- 
Jos Purvis (jopurvis at cisco.com)
.:|:.:|:. cisco systems | Cryptographic Services
PGP: 0xFD802FEE07D19105 | Controls and Trust Verification
 

?On 7/17/20, 1:57 AM, "Infrastructure on behalf of Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA)" <infrastructure-bounces at cabforum.org on behalf of dzacharo at harica.gr> wrote:


    The review period needs to start soon (by Tuesday 2020-07-21), and I 
    need some help to get this ready using the new pandoc system. If the 
    pandoc conversion doesn't work as expected, I will have to do everything 
    manually using MS word.

    Can someone please provide me with the docx version of the "existing" 
    Baseline Requirements (or show me how to get it), so I can compare it 
    against the docx version we currently use to produce the PDF of the BRs? 
    This will be my first check.

    Once I verify that there are no differences (other than formatting) with 
    the current BRs, I will ask for the docx version produced by ballots 
    SC30 and SC31 combined, unless someone shows me how to produce this 
    combined docx version on my own.

    Since we're doing this for the first time (relying so much on pandoc 
    conversion for the review period) I will definitely need a second pair 
    of eyes to confirm that the contents of the ballots are indeed 
    incorporated into the produced combined docx/pdf that will be sent to 
    the WG. This will probably be Wayne or Ryan (proposer of both ballots).


    Thanks,
    Dimitris.
    _______________________________________________
    Infrastructure mailing list
    Infrastructure at cabforum.org
    https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3699 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20200717/411c8b00/attachment.p7s>

From sleevi at google.com  Fri Jul 17 08:06:52 2020
From: sleevi at google.com (Ryan Sleevi)
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2020 11:06:52 -0400
Subject: [Infrastructure] Preparation of review period for SC30 and SC31
In-Reply-To: <4DF2449B-4FE8-4E6B-826F-8057CAFE7728@cisco.com>
References: <77f354e2-de7f-1c64-fb8b-1d0f9f773c9b@harica.gr>
 <ca627ffe-75b5-3da7-46a7-1754148a14b0@harica.gr>
 <4DF2449B-4FE8-4E6B-826F-8057CAFE7728@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <CACvaWva7RCLnYB1zo5FfcXifH7d=+DzjXKt5CrtfcKDqpNEBHA@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 10:50 AM Jos Purvis (jopurvis) <jopurvis at cisco.com>
wrote:

> Hi Dimitris,
>
> For the current version in Word format, you can fetch it from this link:
>
> https://cabforum-travis-artifacts.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/builds/master/BR.docx
>
> That's the same link as the PDF from the front page of the CABF
> repository, but with the extension changed to docx (we need to update the
> README on the repository to reflect the new formats and whatnot!).
>
> For the SC30 and SC31 ballots, the Travis build completed successfully,
> but it doesn't look like it uploaded the resulting artifacts to S3. Ryan,
> is that something we need to fix? (Looks like that used to be the default
> and isn't anymore?)


I think there's some confusion. It was never the default to upload
artifacts for PRs. This is the whole discussion about the need to create a
dedicated branch within the main CABF repository, then create a PR using
that, to have the artifact produced. I'll see about doing that later today.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20200717/b0938c89/attachment.html>

From jopurvis at cisco.com  Fri Jul 17 08:31:51 2020
From: jopurvis at cisco.com (Jos Purvis (jopurvis))
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2020 15:31:51 +0000
Subject: [Infrastructure] Preparation of review period for SC30 and SC31
In-Reply-To: <CACvaWva7RCLnYB1zo5FfcXifH7d=+DzjXKt5CrtfcKDqpNEBHA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <77f354e2-de7f-1c64-fb8b-1d0f9f773c9b@harica.gr>
 <ca627ffe-75b5-3da7-46a7-1754148a14b0@harica.gr>
 <4DF2449B-4FE8-4E6B-826F-8057CAFE7728@cisco.com>
 <CACvaWva7RCLnYB1zo5FfcXifH7d=+DzjXKt5CrtfcKDqpNEBHA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <F99332C2-ADF3-4DA5-9D21-7200061CF828@cisco.com>

Hmmm. So I know we?ve never produced uploaded artifacts from PRs from other people?s forks, which makes sense?I thought that was the discussion. We?ve been producing artifacts from PRs of branches actually on the cabforum repo, though, because a quick peruse of the S3 bucket contents shows a folder for each cabforum/documents branch up through pandoc-travis-changes. 

 

 

-- 
Jos Purvis (jopurvis at cisco.com)
.:|:.:|:. cisco systems | Cryptographic Services
PGP: 0xFD802FEE07D19105 | Controls and Trust Verification

 

 

From: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com>
Date: Friday, July 17, 2020 at 11:07 AM
To: "Jos Purvis (jopurvis)" <jopurvis at cisco.com>
Cc: "Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA)" <dzacharo at harica.gr>, "infrastructure at cabforum.org" <infrastructure at cabforum.org>
Subject: Re: [Infrastructure] Preparation of review period for SC30 and SC31

 

 

 

On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 10:50 AM Jos Purvis (jopurvis) <jopurvis at cisco.com> wrote:

Hi Dimitris,

For the current version in Word format, you can fetch it from this link:
        https://cabforum-travis-artifacts.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/builds/master/BR.docx

That's the same link as the PDF from the front page of the CABF repository, but with the extension changed to docx (we need to update the README on the repository to reflect the new formats and whatnot!).

For the SC30 and SC31 ballots, the Travis build completed successfully, but it doesn't look like it uploaded the resulting artifacts to S3. Ryan, is that something we need to fix? (Looks like that used to be the default and isn't anymore?)

 

I think there's some confusion. It was never the default to upload artifacts for PRs. This is the whole discussion about the need to create a dedicated branch within the main CABF repository, then create a PR using that, to have the artifact produced. I'll see about doing that later today. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20200717/6e4e217f/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3699 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20200717/6e4e217f/attachment-0001.p7s>

From dzacharo at harica.gr  Fri Jul 17 08:42:44 2020
From: dzacharo at harica.gr (Dimitris Zacharopoulos)
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2020 15:42:44 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [Infrastructure] Preparation of review period for SC30 and SC31
In-Reply-To: <F99332C2-ADF3-4DA5-9D21-7200061CF828@cisco.com>
References: <77f354e2-de7f-1c64-fb8b-1d0f9f773c9b@harica.gr>
 <ca627ffe-75b5-3da7-46a7-1754148a14b0@harica.gr>
 <4DF2449B-4FE8-4E6B-826F-8057CAFE7728@cisco.com>
 <CACvaWva7RCLnYB1zo5FfcXifH7d=+DzjXKt5CrtfcKDqpNEBHA@mail.gmail.com>
 <F99332C2-ADF3-4DA5-9D21-7200061CF828@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <77747073-cfc4-45ae-85c6-2b6b916e73b9@harica.gr>

That's fine.

Do we have the artifacts from the current official master branch? I can create a PR on our official repo, that contains the commits of both ballots if that automatically creates new artifacts. Then, I can use MS word to compare the display the changes, thus creating a redline.

Would this work?

DZ.

Jul 17, 2020 18:32:10 Jos Purvis (jopurvis) <jopurvis at cisco.com>:

> Hmmm. So I know we?ve never produced uploaded artifacts from PRs from other people?s forks, which makes sense?I thought that was the discussion. We?ve been producing artifacts from PRs of branches actually on the cabforum repo, though, because a quick peruse of the S3 bucket contents shows a folder for each cabforum/documents branch up through pandoc-travis-changes.
> 
> --
> Jos Purvis?(jopurvis at cisco.com)
> .:|:.:|:. cisco systems |?Cryptographic Services
> PGP: 0xFD802FEE07D19105 | Controls and Trust Verification
> 
> From: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com>
> Date: Friday, July 17, 2020 at 11:07 AM
> To: "Jos Purvis (jopurvis)" <jopurvis at cisco.com>
> Cc: "Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA)" <dzacharo at harica.gr>, "infrastructure at cabforum.org" <infrastructure at cabforum.org>
> Subject: Re: [Infrastructure] Preparation of review period for SC30 and SC31
> 
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 10:50 AM Jos Purvis (jopurvis) <jopurvis at cisco.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Dimitris,
>> 
>> For the current version in Word format, you can fetch it from this link:
>> https://cabforum-travis-artifacts.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/builds/master/BR.docx
>> 
>> That's the same link as the PDF from the front page of the CABF repository, but with the extension changed to docx (we need to update the README on the repository to reflect the new formats and whatnot!).
>> 
>> For the SC30 and SC31 ballots, the Travis build completed successfully, but it doesn't look like it uploaded the resulting artifacts to S3. Ryan, is that something we need to fix? (Looks like that used to be the default and isn't anymore?)
>> 
> I think there's some confusion. It was never the default to upload artifacts for PRs. This is the whole discussion about the need to create a dedicated branch within the main CABF repository, then create a PR using that, to have the artifact produced. I'll see about doing that later today.
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20200717/137e2942/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5584 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20200717/137e2942/attachment.p7s>

From sleevi at google.com  Fri Jul 17 08:47:42 2020
From: sleevi at google.com (Ryan Sleevi)
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2020 11:47:42 -0400
Subject: [Infrastructure] Preparation of review period for SC30 and SC31
In-Reply-To: <F99332C2-ADF3-4DA5-9D21-7200061CF828@cisco.com>
References: <77f354e2-de7f-1c64-fb8b-1d0f9f773c9b@harica.gr>
 <ca627ffe-75b5-3da7-46a7-1754148a14b0@harica.gr>
 <4DF2449B-4FE8-4E6B-826F-8057CAFE7728@cisco.com>
 <CACvaWva7RCLnYB1zo5FfcXifH7d=+DzjXKt5CrtfcKDqpNEBHA@mail.gmail.com>
 <F99332C2-ADF3-4DA5-9D21-7200061CF828@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <CACvaWvajtrGKrpKum8aSi7_YEXmWNH0=wxa-UNGjnG5NncpGfg@mail.gmail.com>

Right, but SC30 and SC31 aren't in branches is what I was saying :)

On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 11:31 AM Jos Purvis (jopurvis) <jopurvis at cisco.com>
wrote:

> Hmmm. So I know we?ve never produced uploaded artifacts from PRs *from
> other people?s forks*, which makes sense?I thought that was the
> discussion. We?ve been producing artifacts from PRs of branches actually on
> the cabforum repo, though, because a quick peruse of the S3 bucket contents
> shows a folder for each cabforum/documents branch up through
> pandoc-travis-changes.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Jos Purvis (jopurvis at cisco.com)
> .:|:.:|:. cisco systems | Cryptographic Services
> PGP: 0xFD802FEE07D19105 | Controls and Trust Verification
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com>
> *Date: *Friday, July 17, 2020 at 11:07 AM
> *To: *"Jos Purvis (jopurvis)" <jopurvis at cisco.com>
> *Cc: *"Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA)" <dzacharo at harica.gr>, "
> infrastructure at cabforum.org" <infrastructure at cabforum.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [Infrastructure] Preparation of review period for SC30 and
> SC31
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 10:50 AM Jos Purvis (jopurvis) <jopurvis at cisco.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Dimitris,
>
> For the current version in Word format, you can fetch it from this link:
>
> https://cabforum-travis-artifacts.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/builds/master/BR.docx
>
> That's the same link as the PDF from the front page of the CABF
> repository, but with the extension changed to docx (we need to update the
> README on the repository to reflect the new formats and whatnot!).
>
> For the SC30 and SC31 ballots, the Travis build completed successfully,
> but it doesn't look like it uploaded the resulting artifacts to S3. Ryan,
> is that something we need to fix? (Looks like that used to be the default
> and isn't anymore?)
>
>
>
> I think there's some confusion. It was never the default to upload
> artifacts for PRs. This is the whole discussion about the need to create a
> dedicated branch within the main CABF repository, then create a PR using
> that, to have the artifact produced. I'll see about doing that later today.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20200717/61464598/attachment-0001.html>

From sleevi at google.com  Fri Jul 17 08:48:32 2020
From: sleevi at google.com (Ryan Sleevi)
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2020 11:48:32 -0400
Subject: [Infrastructure] Preparation of review period for SC30 and SC31
In-Reply-To: <77747073-cfc4-45ae-85c6-2b6b916e73b9@harica.gr>
References: <77f354e2-de7f-1c64-fb8b-1d0f9f773c9b@harica.gr>
 <ca627ffe-75b5-3da7-46a7-1754148a14b0@harica.gr>
 <4DF2449B-4FE8-4E6B-826F-8057CAFE7728@cisco.com>
 <CACvaWva7RCLnYB1zo5FfcXifH7d=+DzjXKt5CrtfcKDqpNEBHA@mail.gmail.com>
 <F99332C2-ADF3-4DA5-9D21-7200061CF828@cisco.com>
 <77747073-cfc4-45ae-85c6-2b6b916e73b9@harica.gr>
Message-ID: <CACvaWvZPcP_-AFS=MNc5WOE1TspuCjYtQDL1r1OAxiT_+EMXdw@mail.gmail.com>

Let me dig out the previous e-mail from our discussions about this.

The answer is "No, it won't work", and I was offering to get to it once I'm
nearer to a computer that can do that.

On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 11:43 AM Dimitris Zacharopoulos <dzacharo at harica.gr>
wrote:

> That's fine.
>
> Do we have the artifacts from the current official master branch? I can
> create a PR on our official repo, that contains the commits of both ballots
> if that automatically creates new artifacts. Then, I can use MS word to
> compare the display the changes, thus creating a redline.
>
> Would this work?
>
>
> DZ.
>
> Jul 17, 2020 18:32:10 Jos Purvis (jopurvis) <jopurvis at cisco.com>:
>
> Hmmm. So I know we?ve never produced uploaded artifacts from PRs *from
> other people?s forks*, which makes sense?I thought that was the
> discussion. We?ve been producing artifacts from PRs of branches actually on
> the cabforum repo, though, because a quick peruse of the S3 bucket contents
> shows a folder for each cabforum/documents branch up through
> pandoc-travis-changes.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Jos Purvis (jopurvis at cisco.com)
> .:|:.:|:. cisco systems | Cryptographic Services
> PGP: 0xFD802FEE07D19105 | Controls and Trust Verification
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com>
> *Date: *Friday, July 17, 2020 at 11:07 AM
> *To: *"Jos Purvis (jopurvis)" <jopurvis at cisco.com>
> *Cc: *"Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA)" <dzacharo at harica.gr>, "
> infrastructure at cabforum.org" <infrastructure at cabforum.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [Infrastructure] Preparation of review period for SC30 and
> SC31
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 10:50 AM Jos Purvis (jopurvis) <jopurvis at cisco.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Dimitris,
>
> For the current version in Word format, you can fetch it from this link:
>
> https://cabforum-travis-artifacts.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/builds/master/BR.docx
>
> That's the same link as the PDF from the front page of the CABF
> repository, but with the extension changed to docx (we need to update the
> README on the repository to reflect the new formats and whatnot!).
>
> For the SC30 and SC31 ballots, the Travis build completed successfully,
> but it doesn't look like it uploaded the resulting artifacts to S3. Ryan,
> is that something we need to fix? (Looks like that used to be the default
> and isn't anymore?)
>
>
>
> I think there's some confusion. It was never the default to upload
> artifacts for PRs. This is the whole discussion about the need to create a
> dedicated branch within the main CABF repository, then create a PR using
> that, to have the artifact produced. I'll see about doing that later today.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20200717/fcad1827/attachment.html>

From sleevi at google.com  Fri Jul 17 08:49:38 2020
From: sleevi at google.com (Ryan Sleevi)
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2020 11:49:38 -0400
Subject: [Infrastructure] Preparation of review period for SC30 and SC31
In-Reply-To: <CACvaWvZPcP_-AFS=MNc5WOE1TspuCjYtQDL1r1OAxiT_+EMXdw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <77f354e2-de7f-1c64-fb8b-1d0f9f773c9b@harica.gr>
 <ca627ffe-75b5-3da7-46a7-1754148a14b0@harica.gr>
 <4DF2449B-4FE8-4E6B-826F-8057CAFE7728@cisco.com>
 <CACvaWva7RCLnYB1zo5FfcXifH7d=+DzjXKt5CrtfcKDqpNEBHA@mail.gmail.com>
 <F99332C2-ADF3-4DA5-9D21-7200061CF828@cisco.com>
 <77747073-cfc4-45ae-85c6-2b6b916e73b9@harica.gr>
 <CACvaWvZPcP_-AFS=MNc5WOE1TspuCjYtQDL1r1OAxiT_+EMXdw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACvaWvY2H_E_kYZ7v_DRTuhpuibyGoTA4AhNCMhMvvB9WDcN1g@mail.gmail.com>

https://archive.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/2020-May/000223.html for
the instructions

On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 11:48 AM Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com> wrote:

> Let me dig out the previous e-mail from our discussions about this.
>
> The answer is "No, it won't work", and I was offering to get to it once
> I'm nearer to a computer that can do that.
>
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 11:43 AM Dimitris Zacharopoulos <
> dzacharo at harica.gr> wrote:
>
>> That's fine.
>>
>> Do we have the artifacts from the current official master branch? I can
>> create a PR on our official repo, that contains the commits of both ballots
>> if that automatically creates new artifacts. Then, I can use MS word to
>> compare the display the changes, thus creating a redline.
>>
>> Would this work?
>>
>>
>> DZ.
>>
>> Jul 17, 2020 18:32:10 Jos Purvis (jopurvis) <jopurvis at cisco.com>:
>>
>> Hmmm. So I know we?ve never produced uploaded artifacts from PRs *from
>> other people?s forks*, which makes sense?I thought that was the
>> discussion. We?ve been producing artifacts from PRs of branches actually on
>> the cabforum repo, though, because a quick peruse of the S3 bucket contents
>> shows a folder for each cabforum/documents branch up through
>> pandoc-travis-changes.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jos Purvis (jopurvis at cisco.com)
>> .:|:.:|:. cisco systems | Cryptographic Services
>> PGP: 0xFD802FEE07D19105 | Controls and Trust Verification
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com>
>> *Date: *Friday, July 17, 2020 at 11:07 AM
>> *To: *"Jos Purvis (jopurvis)" <jopurvis at cisco.com>
>> *Cc: *"Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA)" <dzacharo at harica.gr>, "
>> infrastructure at cabforum.org" <infrastructure at cabforum.org>
>> *Subject: *Re: [Infrastructure] Preparation of review period for SC30
>> and SC31
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 10:50 AM Jos Purvis (jopurvis) <
>> jopurvis at cisco.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Dimitris,
>>
>> For the current version in Word format, you can fetch it from this link:
>>
>> https://cabforum-travis-artifacts.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/builds/master/BR.docx
>>
>> That's the same link as the PDF from the front page of the CABF
>> repository, but with the extension changed to docx (we need to update the
>> README on the repository to reflect the new formats and whatnot!).
>>
>> For the SC30 and SC31 ballots, the Travis build completed successfully,
>> but it doesn't look like it uploaded the resulting artifacts to S3. Ryan,
>> is that something we need to fix? (Looks like that used to be the default
>> and isn't anymore?)
>>
>>
>>
>> I think there's some confusion. It was never the default to upload
>> artifacts for PRs. This is the whole discussion about the need to create a
>> dedicated branch within the main CABF repository, then create a PR using
>> that, to have the artifact produced. I'll see about doing that later today.
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20200717/22d536a7/attachment.html>

From jopurvis at cisco.com  Fri Jul 17 08:59:28 2020
From: jopurvis at cisco.com (Jos Purvis (jopurvis))
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2020 15:59:28 +0000
Subject: [Infrastructure] Preparation of review period for SC30 and SC31
In-Reply-To: <CACvaWvY2H_E_kYZ7v_DRTuhpuibyGoTA4AhNCMhMvvB9WDcN1g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <77f354e2-de7f-1c64-fb8b-1d0f9f773c9b@harica.gr>
 <ca627ffe-75b5-3da7-46a7-1754148a14b0@harica.gr>
 <4DF2449B-4FE8-4E6B-826F-8057CAFE7728@cisco.com>
 <CACvaWva7RCLnYB1zo5FfcXifH7d=+DzjXKt5CrtfcKDqpNEBHA@mail.gmail.com>
 <F99332C2-ADF3-4DA5-9D21-7200061CF828@cisco.com>
 <77747073-cfc4-45ae-85c6-2b6b916e73b9@harica.gr>
 <CACvaWvZPcP_-AFS=MNc5WOE1TspuCjYtQDL1r1OAxiT_+EMXdw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACvaWvY2H_E_kYZ7v_DRTuhpuibyGoTA4AhNCMhMvvB9WDcN1g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AD9FCFFB-BC19-4258-B110-C2C183D90996@cisco.com>

Sounds good, Ryan! Dimitris, the link I provided is the official DOCX from the official master branch: that?s the 1.7.0 version of the current master-branch BRs. So that?s the current clean master version, against which you can compare something from the ballot outputs to create a binary redline. The trick is getting you something from the SC30/SC31 branches to create that redline against. ? Ryan, I?ll have a look at it today when I have a chance as well and see if I can sort it. 

 

 

-- 
Jos Purvis (jopurvis at cisco.com)
.:|:.:|:. cisco systems | Cryptographic Services
PGP: 0xFD802FEE07D19105 | Controls and Trust Verification

 

 

From: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com>
Date: Friday, July 17, 2020 at 11:50 AM
To: Dimitris Zacharopoulos <dzacharo at harica.gr>
Cc: "Jos Purvis (jopurvis)" <jopurvis at cisco.com>, "infrastructure at cabforum.org" <infrastructure at cabforum.org>
Subject: Re: [Infrastructure] Preparation of review period for SC30 and SC31

 

https://archive.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/2020-May/000223.html for the instructions

 

On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 11:48 AM Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com> wrote:

Let me dig out the previous e-mail from our discussions about this.

 

The answer is "No, it won't work", and I was offering to get to it once I'm nearer to a computer that can do that.

 

On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 11:43 AM Dimitris Zacharopoulos <dzacharo at harica.gr> wrote:

That's fine.

Do we have the artifacts from the current official master branch? I can create a PR on our official repo, that contains the commits of both ballots if that automatically creates new artifacts. Then, I can use MS word to compare the display the changes, thus creating a redline.

Would this work?

DZ. 

Jul 17, 2020 18:32:10 Jos Purvis (jopurvis) <jopurvis at cisco.com>:

Hmmm. So I know we?ve never produced uploaded artifacts from PRs from other people?s forks, which makes sense?I thought that was the discussion. We?ve been producing artifacts from PRs of branches actually on the cabforum repo, though, because a quick peruse of the S3 bucket contents shows a folder for each cabforum/documents branch up through pandoc-travis-changes. 

  

  

-- 
Jos Purvis (jopurvis at cisco.com)
.:|:.:|:. cisco systems | Cryptographic Services
PGP: 0xFD802FEE07D19105 | Controls and Trust Verification

  

  

From: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com>
Date: Friday, July 17, 2020 at 11:07 AM
To: "Jos Purvis (jopurvis)" <jopurvis at cisco.com>
Cc: "Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA)" <dzacharo at harica.gr>, "infrastructure at cabforum.org" <infrastructure at cabforum.org>
Subject: Re: [Infrastructure] Preparation of review period for SC30 and SC31 

  

  

  

On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 10:50 AM Jos Purvis (jopurvis) <jopurvis at cisco.com> wrote:

Hi Dimitris,

For the current version in Word format, you can fetch it from this link:
        https://cabforum-travis-artifacts.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/builds/master/BR.docx

That's the same link as the PDF from the front page of the CABF repository, but with the extension changed to docx (we need to update the README on the repository to reflect the new formats and whatnot!).

For the SC30 and SC31 ballots, the Travis build completed successfully, but it doesn't look like it uploaded the resulting artifacts to S3. Ryan, is that something we need to fix? (Looks like that used to be the default and isn't anymore?)

  

I think there's some confusion. It was never the default to upload artifacts for PRs. This is the whole discussion about the need to create a dedicated branch within the main CABF repository, then create a PR using that, to have the artifact produced. I'll see about doing that later today. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20200717/0061dedf/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3699 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20200717/0061dedf/attachment-0001.p7s>

From dzacharo at harica.gr  Fri Jul 17 12:08:49 2020
From: dzacharo at harica.gr (Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA))
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2020 22:08:49 +0300
Subject: [Infrastructure] Preparation of review period for SC30 and SC31
In-Reply-To: <AD9FCFFB-BC19-4258-B110-C2C183D90996@cisco.com>
References: <77f354e2-de7f-1c64-fb8b-1d0f9f773c9b@harica.gr>
 <ca627ffe-75b5-3da7-46a7-1754148a14b0@harica.gr>
 <4DF2449B-4FE8-4E6B-826F-8057CAFE7728@cisco.com>
 <CACvaWva7RCLnYB1zo5FfcXifH7d=+DzjXKt5CrtfcKDqpNEBHA@mail.gmail.com>
 <F99332C2-ADF3-4DA5-9D21-7200061CF828@cisco.com>
 <77747073-cfc4-45ae-85c6-2b6b916e73b9@harica.gr>
 <CACvaWvZPcP_-AFS=MNc5WOE1TspuCjYtQDL1r1OAxiT_+EMXdw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACvaWvY2H_E_kYZ7v_DRTuhpuibyGoTA4AhNCMhMvvB9WDcN1g@mail.gmail.com>
 <AD9FCFFB-BC19-4258-B110-C2C183D90996@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <9a12e42c-66dc-1acd-a3df-777823a140af@harica.gr>

Thank you both for the quick response. I recall the instructions posted 
by Ryan; unfortunately I am not so familiar with these processes. I will 
read them more carefully during the weekend. In the meantime, if you 
succeed in getting a combined SC30/SC31 docx against the BRs 1.7.0 sent 
by Jos earlier today, that would save me a lot of time.


Dimitris.


On 17/7/2020 6:59 ?.?., Jos Purvis (jopurvis) wrote:
>
> Sounds good, Ryan! Dimitris, the link I provided is the official DOCX 
> from the official master branch: that?s the 1.7.0 version of the 
> current master-branch BRs. So that?s the current clean master version, 
> against which you can compare something from the ballot outputs to 
> create a binary redline. The trick is getting you something from the 
> SC30/SC31 branches to create that redline against. ?Ryan, I?ll have a 
> look at it today when I have a chance as well and see if I can sort it.
>
> -- 
> Jos Purvis?(jopurvis at cisco.com <mailto:jopurvis at cisco.com>)
> .:|:.:|:. cisco systems |?Cryptographic Services
> PGP: 0xFD802FEE07D19105 | Controls and Trust Verification
>
> *From: *Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com>
> *Date: *Friday, July 17, 2020 at 11:50 AM
> *To: *Dimitris Zacharopoulos <dzacharo at harica.gr>
> *Cc: *"Jos Purvis (jopurvis)" <jopurvis at cisco.com>, 
> "infrastructure at cabforum.org" <infrastructure at cabforum.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [Infrastructure] Preparation of review period for SC30 
> and SC31
>
> https://archive.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/2020-May/000223.html?for 
> the instructions
>
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 11:48 AM Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com 
> <mailto:sleevi at google.com>> wrote:
>
>     Let me dig out the previous e-mail from our discussions about this.
>
>     The answer is "No, it won't work", and I was offering to get to it
>     once I'm nearer to a computer that can do that.
>
>     On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 11:43 AM Dimitris Zacharopoulos
>     <dzacharo at harica.gr <mailto:dzacharo at harica.gr>> wrote:
>
>         That's fine.
>
>         Do we have the artifacts from the current official master
>         branch? I can create a PR on our official repo, that contains
>         the commits of both ballots if that automatically creates new
>         artifacts. Then, I can use MS word to compare the display the
>         changes, thus creating a redline.
>
>         Would this work?
>
>         DZ.
>
>         Jul 17, 2020 18:32:10 Jos Purvis (jopurvis)
>         <jopurvis at cisco.com <mailto:jopurvis at cisco.com>>:
>
>             Hmmm. So I know we?ve never produced uploaded artifacts
>             from PRs /from other people?s forks/, which makes sense?I
>             thought that was the discussion. We?ve been producing
>             artifacts from PRs of branches actually on the cabforum
>             repo, though, because a quick peruse of the S3 bucket
>             contents shows a folder for each cabforum/documents branch
>             up through pandoc-travis-changes.
>
>             -- 
>             Jos Purvis?(jopurvis at cisco.com <mailto:jopurvis at cisco.com>)
>             .:|:.:|:. cisco systems |?Cryptographic Services
>             PGP: 0xFD802FEE07D19105 | Controls and Trust Verification
>
>             *From: *Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com
>             <mailto:sleevi at google.com>>
>             *Date: *Friday, July 17, 2020 at 11:07 AM
>             *To: *"Jos Purvis (jopurvis)" <jopurvis at cisco.com
>             <mailto:jopurvis at cisco.com>>
>             *Cc: *"Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA)"
>             <dzacharo at harica.gr <mailto:dzacharo at harica.gr>>,
>             "infrastructure at cabforum.org
>             <mailto:infrastructure at cabforum.org>"
>             <infrastructure at cabforum.org
>             <mailto:infrastructure at cabforum.org>>
>             *Subject: *Re: [Infrastructure] Preparation of review
>             period for SC30 and SC31
>
>             On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 10:50 AM Jos Purvis (jopurvis)
>             <jopurvis at cisco.com <mailto:jopurvis at cisco.com>> wrote:
>
>                 Hi Dimitris,
>
>                 For the current version in Word format, you can fetch
>                 it from this link:
>                 https://cabforum-travis-artifacts.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/builds/master/BR.docx
>
>                 That's the same link as the PDF from the front page of
>                 the CABF repository, but with the extension changed to
>                 docx (we need to update the README on the repository
>                 to reflect the new formats and whatnot!).
>
>                 For the SC30 and SC31 ballots, the Travis build
>                 completed successfully, but it doesn't look like it
>                 uploaded the resulting artifacts to S3. Ryan, is that
>                 something we need to fix? (Looks like that used to be
>                 the default and isn't anymore?)
>
>             I think there's some confusion. It was never the default
>             to upload artifacts for PRs. This is the whole discussion
>             about the need to create a dedicated branch within the
>             main CABF repository, then create a PR using that, to have
>             the artifact produced. I'll see about doing that later today.
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20200717/deaca613/attachment.html>

From sleevi at google.com  Mon Jul 20 10:40:48 2020
From: sleevi at google.com (Ryan Sleevi)
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 13:40:48 -0400
Subject: [Infrastructure] Preparation of review period for SC30 and SC31
In-Reply-To: <9a12e42c-66dc-1acd-a3df-777823a140af@harica.gr>
References: <77f354e2-de7f-1c64-fb8b-1d0f9f773c9b@harica.gr>
 <ca627ffe-75b5-3da7-46a7-1754148a14b0@harica.gr>
 <4DF2449B-4FE8-4E6B-826F-8057CAFE7728@cisco.com>
 <CACvaWva7RCLnYB1zo5FfcXifH7d=+DzjXKt5CrtfcKDqpNEBHA@mail.gmail.com>
 <F99332C2-ADF3-4DA5-9D21-7200061CF828@cisco.com>
 <77747073-cfc4-45ae-85c6-2b6b916e73b9@harica.gr>
 <CACvaWvZPcP_-AFS=MNc5WOE1TspuCjYtQDL1r1OAxiT_+EMXdw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACvaWvY2H_E_kYZ7v_DRTuhpuibyGoTA4AhNCMhMvvB9WDcN1g@mail.gmail.com>
 <AD9FCFFB-BC19-4258-B110-C2C183D90996@cisco.com>
 <9a12e42c-66dc-1acd-a3df-777823a140af@harica.gr>
Message-ID: <CACvaWvZ32AxYk9KEZZeymh7aTZH4x4PS1iEKrDRfpHr02i6+DQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dimitris: Did that work for you? I didn't hear back so wasn't sure if you
were sorted now with https://github.com/cabforum/documents/pull/203

On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 3:09 PM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) <
dzacharo at harica.gr> wrote:

> Thank you both for the quick response. I recall the instructions posted by
> Ryan; unfortunately I am not so familiar with these processes. I will read
> them more carefully during the weekend. In the meantime, if you succeed in
> getting a combined SC30/SC31 docx against the BRs 1.7.0 sent by Jos earlier
> today, that would save me a lot of time.
>
>
> Dimitris.
>
>
> On 17/7/2020 6:59 ?.?., Jos Purvis (jopurvis) wrote:
>
> Sounds good, Ryan! Dimitris, the link I provided is the official DOCX from
> the official master branch: that?s the 1.7.0 version of the current
> master-branch BRs. So that?s the current clean master version, against
> which you can compare something from the ballot outputs to create a binary
> redline. The trick is getting you something from the SC30/SC31 branches to
> create that redline against. ? Ryan, I?ll have a look at it today when I
> have a chance as well and see if I can sort it.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Jos Purvis (jopurvis at cisco.com)
> .:|:.:|:. cisco systems | Cryptographic Services
> PGP: 0xFD802FEE07D19105 | Controls and Trust Verification
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com> <sleevi at google.com>
> *Date: *Friday, July 17, 2020 at 11:50 AM
> *To: *Dimitris Zacharopoulos <dzacharo at harica.gr> <dzacharo at harica.gr>
> *Cc: *"Jos Purvis (jopurvis)" <jopurvis at cisco.com> <jopurvis at cisco.com>,
> "infrastructure at cabforum.org" <infrastructure at cabforum.org>
> <infrastructure at cabforum.org> <infrastructure at cabforum.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [Infrastructure] Preparation of review period for SC30 and
> SC31
>
>
>
> https://archive.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/2020-May/000223.html for
> the instructions
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 11:48 AM Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com> wrote:
>
> Let me dig out the previous e-mail from our discussions about this.
>
>
>
> The answer is "No, it won't work", and I was offering to get to it once
> I'm nearer to a computer that can do that.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 11:43 AM Dimitris Zacharopoulos <
> dzacharo at harica.gr> wrote:
>
> That's fine.
>
> Do we have the artifacts from the current official master branch? I can
> create a PR on our official repo, that contains the commits of both ballots
> if that automatically creates new artifacts. Then, I can use MS word to
> compare the display the changes, thus creating a redline.
>
> Would this work?
>
> DZ.
>
> Jul 17, 2020 18:32:10 Jos Purvis (jopurvis) <jopurvis at cisco.com>:
>
> Hmmm. So I know we?ve never produced uploaded artifacts from PRs *from
> other people?s forks*, which makes sense?I thought that was the
> discussion. We?ve been producing artifacts from PRs of branches actually on
> the cabforum repo, though, because a quick peruse of the S3 bucket contents
> shows a folder for each cabforum/documents branch up through
> pandoc-travis-changes.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Jos Purvis (jopurvis at cisco.com)
> .:|:.:|:. cisco systems | Cryptographic Services
> PGP: 0xFD802FEE07D19105 | Controls and Trust Verification
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com>
> *Date: *Friday, July 17, 2020 at 11:07 AM
> *To: *"Jos Purvis (jopurvis)" <jopurvis at cisco.com>
> *Cc: *"Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA)" <dzacharo at harica.gr>, "
> infrastructure at cabforum.org" <infrastructure at cabforum.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [Infrastructure] Preparation of review period for SC30 and
> SC31
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 10:50 AM Jos Purvis (jopurvis) <jopurvis at cisco.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Dimitris,
>
> For the current version in Word format, you can fetch it from this link:
>
> https://cabforum-travis-artifacts.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/builds/master/BR.docx
>
> That's the same link as the PDF from the front page of the CABF
> repository, but with the extension changed to docx (we need to update the
> README on the repository to reflect the new formats and whatnot!).
>
> For the SC30 and SC31 ballots, the Travis build completed successfully,
> but it doesn't look like it uploaded the resulting artifacts to S3. Ryan,
> is that something we need to fix? (Looks like that used to be the default
> and isn't anymore?)
>
>
>
> I think there's some confusion. It was never the default to upload
> artifacts for PRs. This is the whole discussion about the need to create a
> dedicated branch within the main CABF repository, then create a PR using
> that, to have the artifact produced. I'll see about doing that later today.
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20200720/908b01d0/attachment.html>

From dzacharo at harica.gr  Mon Jul 20 11:32:08 2020
From: dzacharo at harica.gr (Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA))
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 21:32:08 +0300
Subject: [Infrastructure] Preparation of review period for SC30 and SC31
In-Reply-To: <CACvaWvZ32AxYk9KEZZeymh7aTZH4x4PS1iEKrDRfpHr02i6+DQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <77f354e2-de7f-1c64-fb8b-1d0f9f773c9b@harica.gr>
 <ca627ffe-75b5-3da7-46a7-1754148a14b0@harica.gr>
 <4DF2449B-4FE8-4E6B-826F-8057CAFE7728@cisco.com>
 <CACvaWva7RCLnYB1zo5FfcXifH7d=+DzjXKt5CrtfcKDqpNEBHA@mail.gmail.com>
 <F99332C2-ADF3-4DA5-9D21-7200061CF828@cisco.com>
 <77747073-cfc4-45ae-85c6-2b6b916e73b9@harica.gr>
 <CACvaWvZPcP_-AFS=MNc5WOE1TspuCjYtQDL1r1OAxiT_+EMXdw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACvaWvY2H_E_kYZ7v_DRTuhpuibyGoTA4AhNCMhMvvB9WDcN1g@mail.gmail.com>
 <AD9FCFFB-BC19-4258-B110-C2C183D90996@cisco.com>
 <9a12e42c-66dc-1acd-a3df-777823a140af@harica.gr>
 <CACvaWvZ32AxYk9KEZZeymh7aTZH4x4PS1iEKrDRfpHr02i6+DQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <a98f1991-ebce-3dab-a68f-b8077d11ad99@harica.gr>


I was out of office today so apologies for replying late. The result of 
the process is very good and I plan on adding specific instructions on 
https://wiki.cabforum.org/github_redline_guide. Until we reach the next 
milestone of automatically creating a red-line, we can create a final 
version in the Pull Request, and compare against the existing main branch.

I have attached the resulting docx redline BRs between 1.7.0 and ballots 
SC30+31 using the two docx versions I got from the links provided by Jos 
and Ryan.

Does this look good to everyone? I will do a more detailed review myself 
tomorrow morning (Greek time) before posting to the public lists.

Once again, a big thanks to Jos and Ryan for working on this automation.


Best regards,
Dimitris.


On 2020-07-20 8:40 ?.?., Ryan Sleevi wrote:
> Dimitris: Did that work for you? I didn't hear back so wasn't sure if 
> you were sorted now with https://github.com/cabforum/documents/pull/203
>
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 3:09 PM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) 
> <dzacharo at harica.gr <mailto:dzacharo at harica.gr>> wrote:
>
>     Thank you both for the quick response. I recall the instructions
>     posted by Ryan; unfortunately I am not so familiar with these
>     processes. I will read them more carefully during the weekend. In
>     the meantime, if you succeed in getting a combined SC30/SC31 docx
>     against the BRs 1.7.0 sent by Jos earlier today, that would save
>     me a lot of time.
>
>
>     Dimitris.
>
>
>     On 17/7/2020 6:59 ?.?., Jos Purvis (jopurvis) wrote:
>>
>>     Sounds good, Ryan! Dimitris, the link I provided is the official
>>     DOCX from the official master branch: that?s the 1.7.0 version of
>>     the current master-branch BRs. So that?s the current clean master
>>     version, against which you can compare something from the ballot
>>     outputs to create a binary redline. The trick is getting you
>>     something from the SC30/SC31 branches to create that redline
>>     against. ?Ryan, I?ll have a look at it today when I have a
>>     chance as well and see if I can sort it.
>>
>>     -- 
>>     Jos Purvis?(jopurvis at cisco.com <mailto:jopurvis at cisco.com>)
>>     .:|:.:|:. cisco systems |?Cryptographic Services
>>     PGP: 0xFD802FEE07D19105 | Controls and Trust Verification
>>
>>     *From: *Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com> <mailto:sleevi at google.com>
>>     *Date: *Friday, July 17, 2020 at 11:50 AM
>>     *To: *Dimitris Zacharopoulos <dzacharo at harica.gr>
>>     <mailto:dzacharo at harica.gr>
>>     *Cc: *"Jos Purvis (jopurvis)" <jopurvis at cisco.com>
>>     <mailto:jopurvis at cisco.com>, "infrastructure at cabforum.org"
>>     <mailto:infrastructure at cabforum.org>
>>     <infrastructure at cabforum.org> <mailto:infrastructure at cabforum.org>
>>     *Subject: *Re: [Infrastructure] Preparation of review period for
>>     SC30 and SC31
>>
>>     https://archive.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/2020-May/000223.html?for
>>     the instructions
>>
>>     On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 11:48 AM Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com
>>     <mailto:sleevi at google.com>> wrote:
>>
>>         Let me dig out the previous e-mail from our discussions about
>>         this.
>>
>>         The answer is "No, it won't work", and I was offering to get
>>         to it once I'm nearer to a computer that can do that.
>>
>>         On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 11:43 AM Dimitris Zacharopoulos
>>         <dzacharo at harica.gr <mailto:dzacharo at harica.gr>> wrote:
>>
>>             That's fine.
>>
>>             Do we have the artifacts from the current official master
>>             branch? I can create a PR on our official repo, that
>>             contains the commits of both ballots if that
>>             automatically creates new artifacts. Then, I can use MS
>>             word to compare the display the changes, thus creating a
>>             redline.
>>
>>             Would this work?
>>
>>             DZ.
>>
>>             Jul 17, 2020 18:32:10 Jos Purvis (jopurvis)
>>             <jopurvis at cisco.com <mailto:jopurvis at cisco.com>>:
>>
>>                 Hmmm. So I know we?ve never produced uploaded
>>                 artifacts from PRs /from other people?s forks/, which
>>                 makes sense?I thought that was the discussion. We?ve
>>                 been producing artifacts from PRs of branches
>>                 actually on the cabforum repo, though, because a
>>                 quick peruse of the S3 bucket contents shows a folder
>>                 for each cabforum/documents branch up through
>>                 pandoc-travis-changes.
>>
>>                 -- 
>>                 Jos Purvis?(jopurvis at cisco.com
>>                 <mailto:jopurvis at cisco.com>)
>>                 .:|:.:|:. cisco systems |?Cryptographic Services
>>                 PGP: 0xFD802FEE07D19105 | Controls and Trust Verification
>>
>>                 *From: *Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com
>>                 <mailto:sleevi at google.com>>
>>                 *Date: *Friday, July 17, 2020 at 11:07 AM
>>                 *To: *"Jos Purvis (jopurvis)" <jopurvis at cisco.com
>>                 <mailto:jopurvis at cisco.com>>
>>                 *Cc: *"Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA)"
>>                 <dzacharo at harica.gr <mailto:dzacharo at harica.gr>>,
>>                 "infrastructure at cabforum.org
>>                 <mailto:infrastructure at cabforum.org>"
>>                 <infrastructure at cabforum.org
>>                 <mailto:infrastructure at cabforum.org>>
>>                 *Subject: *Re: [Infrastructure] Preparation of review
>>                 period for SC30 and SC31
>>
>>                 On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 10:50 AM Jos Purvis
>>                 (jopurvis) <jopurvis at cisco.com
>>                 <mailto:jopurvis at cisco.com>> wrote:
>>
>>                     Hi Dimitris,
>>
>>                     For the current version in Word format, you can
>>                     fetch it from this link:
>>                     https://cabforum-travis-artifacts.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/builds/master/BR.docx
>>
>>                     That's the same link as the PDF from the front
>>                     page of the CABF repository, but with the
>>                     extension changed to docx (we need to update the
>>                     README on the repository to reflect the new
>>                     formats and whatnot!).
>>
>>                     For the SC30 and SC31 ballots, the Travis build
>>                     completed successfully, but it doesn't look like
>>                     it uploaded the resulting artifacts to S3. Ryan,
>>                     is that something we need to fix? (Looks like
>>                     that used to be the default and isn't anymore?)
>>
>>                 I think there's some confusion. It was never the
>>                 default to upload artifacts for PRs. This is the
>>                 whole discussion about the need to create a dedicated
>>                 branch within the main CABF repository, then create a
>>                 PR using that, to have the artifact produced. I'll
>>                 see about doing that later today.
>>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20200720/65c7b9b1/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CA-Browser Forum BR 1.7.0+ballot SC30-31-for-review-only.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 158071 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20200720/65c7b9b1/attachment-0001.docx>

From dzacharo at harica.gr  Mon Jul 20 21:42:24 2020
From: dzacharo at harica.gr (Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA))
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 07:42:24 +0300
Subject: [Infrastructure] Preparation of review period for SC30 and SC31
In-Reply-To: <a98f1991-ebce-3dab-a68f-b8077d11ad99@harica.gr>
References: <77f354e2-de7f-1c64-fb8b-1d0f9f773c9b@harica.gr>
 <ca627ffe-75b5-3da7-46a7-1754148a14b0@harica.gr>
 <4DF2449B-4FE8-4E6B-826F-8057CAFE7728@cisco.com>
 <CACvaWva7RCLnYB1zo5FfcXifH7d=+DzjXKt5CrtfcKDqpNEBHA@mail.gmail.com>
 <F99332C2-ADF3-4DA5-9D21-7200061CF828@cisco.com>
 <77747073-cfc4-45ae-85c6-2b6b916e73b9@harica.gr>
 <CACvaWvZPcP_-AFS=MNc5WOE1TspuCjYtQDL1r1OAxiT_+EMXdw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACvaWvY2H_E_kYZ7v_DRTuhpuibyGoTA4AhNCMhMvvB9WDcN1g@mail.gmail.com>
 <AD9FCFFB-BC19-4258-B110-C2C183D90996@cisco.com>
 <9a12e42c-66dc-1acd-a3df-777823a140af@harica.gr>
 <CACvaWvZ32AxYk9KEZZeymh7aTZH4x4PS1iEKrDRfpHr02i6+DQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <a98f1991-ebce-3dab-a68f-b8077d11ad99@harica.gr>
Message-ID: <f48b0e3d-ff73-15db-1e8d-4310a25ea03f@harica.gr>


I would appreciate a review of the last two sections added in 
https://wiki.cabforum.org/github_redline_guide before removing the 
"under construction".


Thank you,
Dimitris.


On 2020-07-20 9:32 ?.?., Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) wrote:
>
> I was out of office today so apologies for replying late. The result 
> of the process is very good and I plan on adding specific instructions 
> on https://wiki.cabforum.org/github_redline_guide. Until we reach the 
> next milestone of automatically creating a red-line, we can create a 
> final version in the Pull Request, and compare against the existing 
> main branch.
>
> I have attached the resulting docx redline BRs between 1.7.0 and 
> ballots SC30+31 using the two docx versions I got from the links 
> provided by Jos and Ryan.
>
> Does this look good to everyone? I will do a more detailed review 
> myself tomorrow morning (Greek time) before posting to the public lists.
>
> Once again, a big thanks to Jos and Ryan for working on this automation.
>
>
> Best regards,
> Dimitris.
>
>
> On 2020-07-20 8:40 ?.?., Ryan Sleevi wrote:
>> Dimitris: Did that work for you? I didn't hear back so wasn't sure if 
>> you were sorted now with https://github.com/cabforum/documents/pull/203
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 3:09 PM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) 
>> <dzacharo at harica.gr <mailto:dzacharo at harica.gr>> wrote:
>>
>>     Thank you both for the quick response. I recall the instructions
>>     posted by Ryan; unfortunately I am not so familiar with these
>>     processes. I will read them more carefully during the weekend. In
>>     the meantime, if you succeed in getting a combined SC30/SC31 docx
>>     against the BRs 1.7.0 sent by Jos earlier today, that would save
>>     me a lot of time.
>>
>>
>>     Dimitris.
>>
>>
>>     On 17/7/2020 6:59 ?.?., Jos Purvis (jopurvis) wrote:
>>>
>>>     Sounds good, Ryan! Dimitris, the link I provided is the official
>>>     DOCX from the official master branch: that?s the 1.7.0 version
>>>     of the current master-branch BRs. So that?s the current clean
>>>     master version, against which you can compare something from the
>>>     ballot outputs to create a binary redline. The trick is getting
>>>     you something from the SC30/SC31 branches to create that redline
>>>     against. ?Ryan, I?ll have a look at it today when I have a
>>>     chance as well and see if I can sort it.
>>>
>>>     -- 
>>>     Jos Purvis?(jopurvis at cisco.com <mailto:jopurvis at cisco.com>)
>>>     .:|:.:|:. cisco systems |?Cryptographic Services
>>>     PGP: 0xFD802FEE07D19105 | Controls and Trust Verification
>>>
>>>     *From: *Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com> <mailto:sleevi at google.com>
>>>     *Date: *Friday, July 17, 2020 at 11:50 AM
>>>     *To: *Dimitris Zacharopoulos <dzacharo at harica.gr>
>>>     <mailto:dzacharo at harica.gr>
>>>     *Cc: *"Jos Purvis (jopurvis)" <jopurvis at cisco.com>
>>>     <mailto:jopurvis at cisco.com>, "infrastructure at cabforum.org"
>>>     <mailto:infrastructure at cabforum.org>
>>>     <infrastructure at cabforum.org> <mailto:infrastructure at cabforum.org>
>>>     *Subject: *Re: [Infrastructure] Preparation of review period for
>>>     SC30 and SC31
>>>
>>>     https://archive.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/2020-May/000223.html?for
>>>     the instructions
>>>
>>>     On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 11:48 AM Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com
>>>     <mailto:sleevi at google.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>         Let me dig out the previous e-mail from our discussions
>>>         about this.
>>>
>>>         The answer is "No, it won't work", and I was offering to get
>>>         to it once I'm nearer to a computer that can do that.
>>>
>>>         On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 11:43 AM Dimitris Zacharopoulos
>>>         <dzacharo at harica.gr <mailto:dzacharo at harica.gr>> wrote:
>>>
>>>             That's fine.
>>>
>>>             Do we have the artifacts from the current official
>>>             master branch? I can create a PR on our official repo,
>>>             that contains the commits of both ballots if that
>>>             automatically creates new artifacts. Then, I can use MS
>>>             word to compare the display the changes, thus creating a
>>>             redline.
>>>
>>>             Would this work?
>>>
>>>             DZ.
>>>
>>>             Jul 17, 2020 18:32:10 Jos Purvis (jopurvis)
>>>             <jopurvis at cisco.com <mailto:jopurvis at cisco.com>>:
>>>
>>>                 Hmmm. So I know we?ve never produced uploaded
>>>                 artifacts from PRs /from other people?s forks/,
>>>                 which makes sense?I thought that was the discussion.
>>>                 We?ve been producing artifacts from PRs of branches
>>>                 actually on the cabforum repo, though, because a
>>>                 quick peruse of the S3 bucket contents shows a
>>>                 folder for each cabforum/documents branch up through
>>>                 pandoc-travis-changes.
>>>
>>>                 -- 
>>>                 Jos Purvis?(jopurvis at cisco.com
>>>                 <mailto:jopurvis at cisco.com>)
>>>                 .:|:.:|:. cisco systems |?Cryptographic Services
>>>                 PGP: 0xFD802FEE07D19105 | Controls and Trust
>>>                 Verification
>>>
>>>                 *From: *Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com
>>>                 <mailto:sleevi at google.com>>
>>>                 *Date: *Friday, July 17, 2020 at 11:07 AM
>>>                 *To: *"Jos Purvis (jopurvis)" <jopurvis at cisco.com
>>>                 <mailto:jopurvis at cisco.com>>
>>>                 *Cc: *"Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA)"
>>>                 <dzacharo at harica.gr <mailto:dzacharo at harica.gr>>,
>>>                 "infrastructure at cabforum.org
>>>                 <mailto:infrastructure at cabforum.org>"
>>>                 <infrastructure at cabforum.org
>>>                 <mailto:infrastructure at cabforum.org>>
>>>                 *Subject: *Re: [Infrastructure] Preparation of
>>>                 review period for SC30 and SC31
>>>
>>>                 On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 10:50 AM Jos Purvis
>>>                 (jopurvis) <jopurvis at cisco.com
>>>                 <mailto:jopurvis at cisco.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>                     Hi Dimitris,
>>>
>>>                     For the current version in Word format, you can
>>>                     fetch it from this link:
>>>                     https://cabforum-travis-artifacts.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/builds/master/BR.docx
>>>
>>>                     That's the same link as the PDF from the front
>>>                     page of the CABF repository, but with the
>>>                     extension changed to docx (we need to update the
>>>                     README on the repository to reflect the new
>>>                     formats and whatnot!).
>>>
>>>                     For the SC30 and SC31 ballots, the Travis build
>>>                     completed successfully, but it doesn't look like
>>>                     it uploaded the resulting artifacts to S3. Ryan,
>>>                     is that something we need to fix? (Looks like
>>>                     that used to be the default and isn't anymore?)
>>>
>>>                 I think there's some confusion. It was never the
>>>                 default to upload artifacts for PRs. This is the
>>>                 whole discussion about the need to create a
>>>                 dedicated branch within the main CABF repository,
>>>                 then create a PR using that, to have the artifact
>>>                 produced. I'll see about doing that later today.
>>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Infrastructure mailing list
> Infrastructure at cabforum.org
> https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20200721/ed0b2987/attachment-0001.html>

From sleevi at google.com  Tue Jul 21 09:27:31 2020
From: sleevi at google.com (Ryan Sleevi)
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 12:27:31 -0400
Subject: [Infrastructure] Preparation of review period for SC30 and SC31
In-Reply-To: <f48b0e3d-ff73-15db-1e8d-4310a25ea03f@harica.gr>
References: <77f354e2-de7f-1c64-fb8b-1d0f9f773c9b@harica.gr>
 <ca627ffe-75b5-3da7-46a7-1754148a14b0@harica.gr>
 <4DF2449B-4FE8-4E6B-826F-8057CAFE7728@cisco.com>
 <CACvaWva7RCLnYB1zo5FfcXifH7d=+DzjXKt5CrtfcKDqpNEBHA@mail.gmail.com>
 <F99332C2-ADF3-4DA5-9D21-7200061CF828@cisco.com>
 <77747073-cfc4-45ae-85c6-2b6b916e73b9@harica.gr>
 <CACvaWvZPcP_-AFS=MNc5WOE1TspuCjYtQDL1r1OAxiT_+EMXdw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACvaWvY2H_E_kYZ7v_DRTuhpuibyGoTA4AhNCMhMvvB9WDcN1g@mail.gmail.com>
 <AD9FCFFB-BC19-4258-B110-C2C183D90996@cisco.com>
 <9a12e42c-66dc-1acd-a3df-777823a140af@harica.gr>
 <CACvaWvZ32AxYk9KEZZeymh7aTZH4x4PS1iEKrDRfpHr02i6+DQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <a98f1991-ebce-3dab-a68f-b8077d11ad99@harica.gr>
 <f48b0e3d-ff73-15db-1e8d-4310a25ea03f@harica.gr>
Message-ID: <CACvaWvaxAJEkrGarZnzOgRkDjyQXWsvY7NbDHy7TuG=eYXjfhg@mail.gmail.com>

Made edits and added screenshots. It looks like several steps had been
omitted from my previous mail, so hopefully that helps.

On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 12:42 AM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) <
dzacharo at harica.gr> wrote:

>
> I would appreciate a review of the last two sections added in
> https://wiki.cabforum.org/github_redline_guide before removing the "under
> construction".
>
>
> Thank you,
> Dimitris.
>
>
> On 2020-07-20 9:32 ?.?., Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) wrote:
>
>
> I was out of office today so apologies for replying late. The result of
> the process is very good and I plan on adding specific instructions on
> https://wiki.cabforum.org/github_redline_guide. Until we reach the next
> milestone of automatically creating a red-line, we can create a final
> version in the Pull Request, and compare against the existing main branch.
>
> I have attached the resulting docx redline BRs between 1.7.0 and ballots
> SC30+31 using the two docx versions I got from the links provided by Jos
> and Ryan.
>
> Does this look good to everyone? I will do a more detailed review myself
> tomorrow morning (Greek time) before posting to the public lists.
>
> Once again, a big thanks to Jos and Ryan for working on this automation.
>
>
> Best regards,
> Dimitris.
>
>
> On 2020-07-20 8:40 ?.?., Ryan Sleevi wrote:
>
> Dimitris: Did that work for you? I didn't hear back so wasn't sure if you
> were sorted now with https://github.com/cabforum/documents/pull/203
>
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 3:09 PM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) <
> dzacharo at harica.gr> wrote:
>
>> Thank you both for the quick response. I recall the instructions posted
>> by Ryan; unfortunately I am not so familiar with these processes. I will
>> read them more carefully during the weekend. In the meantime, if you
>> succeed in getting a combined SC30/SC31 docx against the BRs 1.7.0 sent by
>> Jos earlier today, that would save me a lot of time.
>>
>>
>> Dimitris.
>>
>>
>> On 17/7/2020 6:59 ?.?., Jos Purvis (jopurvis) wrote:
>>
>> Sounds good, Ryan! Dimitris, the link I provided is the official DOCX
>> from the official master branch: that?s the 1.7.0 version of the current
>> master-branch BRs. So that?s the current clean master version, against
>> which you can compare something from the ballot outputs to create a binary
>> redline. The trick is getting you something from the SC30/SC31 branches to
>> create that redline against. ? Ryan, I?ll have a look at it today when
>> I have a chance as well and see if I can sort it.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jos Purvis (jopurvis at cisco.com)
>> .:|:.:|:. cisco systems | Cryptographic Services
>> PGP: 0xFD802FEE07D19105 | Controls and Trust Verification
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com> <sleevi at google.com>
>> *Date: *Friday, July 17, 2020 at 11:50 AM
>> *To: *Dimitris Zacharopoulos <dzacharo at harica.gr> <dzacharo at harica.gr>
>> *Cc: *"Jos Purvis (jopurvis)" <jopurvis at cisco.com> <jopurvis at cisco.com>,
>> "infrastructure at cabforum.org" <infrastructure at cabforum.org>
>> <infrastructure at cabforum.org> <infrastructure at cabforum.org>
>> *Subject: *Re: [Infrastructure] Preparation of review period for SC30
>> and SC31
>>
>>
>>
>> https://archive.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/2020-May/000223.html for
>> the instructions
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 11:48 AM Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com> wrote:
>>
>> Let me dig out the previous e-mail from our discussions about this.
>>
>>
>>
>> The answer is "No, it won't work", and I was offering to get to it once
>> I'm nearer to a computer that can do that.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 11:43 AM Dimitris Zacharopoulos <
>> dzacharo at harica.gr> wrote:
>>
>> That's fine.
>>
>> Do we have the artifacts from the current official master branch? I can
>> create a PR on our official repo, that contains the commits of both ballots
>> if that automatically creates new artifacts. Then, I can use MS word to
>> compare the display the changes, thus creating a redline.
>>
>> Would this work?
>>
>> DZ.
>>
>> Jul 17, 2020 18:32:10 Jos Purvis (jopurvis) <jopurvis at cisco.com>:
>>
>> Hmmm. So I know we?ve never produced uploaded artifacts from PRs *from
>> other people?s forks*, which makes sense?I thought that was the
>> discussion. We?ve been producing artifacts from PRs of branches actually on
>> the cabforum repo, though, because a quick peruse of the S3 bucket contents
>> shows a folder for each cabforum/documents branch up through
>> pandoc-travis-changes.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jos Purvis (jopurvis at cisco.com)
>> .:|:.:|:. cisco systems | Cryptographic Services
>> PGP: 0xFD802FEE07D19105 | Controls and Trust Verification
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com>
>> *Date: *Friday, July 17, 2020 at 11:07 AM
>> *To: *"Jos Purvis (jopurvis)" <jopurvis at cisco.com>
>> *Cc: *"Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA)" <dzacharo at harica.gr>, "
>> infrastructure at cabforum.org" <infrastructure at cabforum.org>
>> *Subject: *Re: [Infrastructure] Preparation of review period for SC30
>> and SC31
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 10:50 AM Jos Purvis (jopurvis) <
>> jopurvis at cisco.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Dimitris,
>>
>> For the current version in Word format, you can fetch it from this link:
>>
>> https://cabforum-travis-artifacts.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/builds/master/BR.docx
>>
>> That's the same link as the PDF from the front page of the CABF
>> repository, but with the extension changed to docx (we need to update the
>> README on the repository to reflect the new formats and whatnot!).
>>
>> For the SC30 and SC31 ballots, the Travis build completed successfully,
>> but it doesn't look like it uploaded the resulting artifacts to S3. Ryan,
>> is that something we need to fix? (Looks like that used to be the default
>> and isn't anymore?)
>>
>>
>>
>> I think there's some confusion. It was never the default to upload
>> artifacts for PRs. This is the whole discussion about the need to create a
>> dedicated branch within the main CABF repository, then create a PR using
>> that, to have the artifact produced. I'll see about doing that later today.
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Infrastructure mailing listInfrastructure at cabforum.orghttps://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Infrastructure mailing list
> Infrastructure at cabforum.org
> https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20200721/e44ea760/attachment-0001.html>

From dzacharo at harica.gr  Tue Jul 21 10:06:31 2020
From: dzacharo at harica.gr (Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA))
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 20:06:31 +0300
Subject: [Infrastructure] Preparation of review period for SC30 and SC31
In-Reply-To: <CACvaWvaxAJEkrGarZnzOgRkDjyQXWsvY7NbDHy7TuG=eYXjfhg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <77f354e2-de7f-1c64-fb8b-1d0f9f773c9b@harica.gr>
 <ca627ffe-75b5-3da7-46a7-1754148a14b0@harica.gr>
 <4DF2449B-4FE8-4E6B-826F-8057CAFE7728@cisco.com>
 <CACvaWva7RCLnYB1zo5FfcXifH7d=+DzjXKt5CrtfcKDqpNEBHA@mail.gmail.com>
 <F99332C2-ADF3-4DA5-9D21-7200061CF828@cisco.com>
 <77747073-cfc4-45ae-85c6-2b6b916e73b9@harica.gr>
 <CACvaWvZPcP_-AFS=MNc5WOE1TspuCjYtQDL1r1OAxiT_+EMXdw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACvaWvY2H_E_kYZ7v_DRTuhpuibyGoTA4AhNCMhMvvB9WDcN1g@mail.gmail.com>
 <AD9FCFFB-BC19-4258-B110-C2C183D90996@cisco.com>
 <9a12e42c-66dc-1acd-a3df-777823a140af@harica.gr>
 <CACvaWvZ32AxYk9KEZZeymh7aTZH4x4PS1iEKrDRfpHr02i6+DQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <a98f1991-ebce-3dab-a68f-b8077d11ad99@harica.gr>
 <f48b0e3d-ff73-15db-1e8d-4310a25ea03f@harica.gr>
 <CACvaWvaxAJEkrGarZnzOgRkDjyQXWsvY7NbDHy7TuG=eYXjfhg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <d17868ce-e9ef-aaeb-e9fb-d30e28bbeb55@harica.gr>



On 2020-07-21 7:27 ?.?., Ryan Sleevi wrote:
> Made edits and added screenshots. It looks like several steps had been 
> omitted from my previous mail, so hopefully that helps.

It sure does. Some text is broken under step 8, probably because they 
are partially converted to hyperlinks.


Thanks,
Dimitris.



>
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 12:42 AM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) 
> <dzacharo at harica.gr <mailto:dzacharo at harica.gr>> wrote:
>
>
>     I would appreciate a review of the last two sections added in
>     https://wiki.cabforum.org/github_redline_guide before removing the
>     "under construction".
>
>
>     Thank you,
>     Dimitris.
>
>
>     On 2020-07-20 9:32 ?.?., Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) wrote:
>>
>>     I was out of office today so apologies for replying late. The
>>     result of the process is very good and I plan on adding specific
>>     instructions on https://wiki.cabforum.org/github_redline_guide.
>>     Until we reach the next milestone of automatically creating a
>>     red-line, we can create a final version in the Pull Request, and
>>     compare against the existing main branch.
>>
>>     I have attached the resulting docx redline BRs between 1.7.0 and
>>     ballots SC30+31 using the two docx versions I got from the links
>>     provided by Jos and Ryan.
>>
>>     Does this look good to everyone? I will do a more detailed review
>>     myself tomorrow morning (Greek time) before posting to the public
>>     lists.
>>
>>     Once again, a big thanks to Jos and Ryan for working on this
>>     automation.
>>
>>
>>     Best regards,
>>     Dimitris.
>>
>>
>>     On 2020-07-20 8:40 ?.?., Ryan Sleevi wrote:
>>>     Dimitris: Did that work for you? I didn't hear back so wasn't
>>>     sure if you were sorted now with
>>>     https://github.com/cabforum/documents/pull/203
>>>
>>>     On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 3:09 PM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA)
>>>     <dzacharo at harica.gr <mailto:dzacharo at harica.gr>> wrote:
>>>
>>>         Thank you both for the quick response. I recall the
>>>         instructions posted by Ryan; unfortunately I am not so
>>>         familiar with these processes. I will read them more
>>>         carefully during the weekend. In the meantime, if you
>>>         succeed in getting a combined SC30/SC31 docx against the BRs
>>>         1.7.0 sent by Jos earlier today, that would save me a lot of
>>>         time.
>>>
>>>
>>>         Dimitris.
>>>
>>>
>>>         On 17/7/2020 6:59 ?.?., Jos Purvis (jopurvis) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>         Sounds good, Ryan! Dimitris, the link I provided is the
>>>>         official DOCX from the official master branch: that?s the
>>>>         1.7.0 version of the current master-branch BRs. So that?s
>>>>         the current clean master version, against which you can
>>>>         compare something from the ballot outputs to create a
>>>>         binary redline. The trick is getting you something from the
>>>>         SC30/SC31 branches to create that redline against. ?Ryan,
>>>>         I?ll have a look at it today when I have a chance as well
>>>>         and see if I can sort it.
>>>>
>>>>         -- 
>>>>         Jos Purvis?(jopurvis at cisco.com <mailto:jopurvis at cisco.com>)
>>>>         .:|:.:|:. cisco systems |?Cryptographic Services
>>>>         PGP: 0xFD802FEE07D19105 | Controls and Trust Verification
>>>>
>>>>         *From: *Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com>
>>>>         <mailto:sleevi at google.com>
>>>>         *Date: *Friday, July 17, 2020 at 11:50 AM
>>>>         *To: *Dimitris Zacharopoulos <dzacharo at harica.gr>
>>>>         <mailto:dzacharo at harica.gr>
>>>>         *Cc: *"Jos Purvis (jopurvis)" <jopurvis at cisco.com>
>>>>         <mailto:jopurvis at cisco.com>, "infrastructure at cabforum.org"
>>>>         <mailto:infrastructure at cabforum.org>
>>>>         <infrastructure at cabforum.org>
>>>>         <mailto:infrastructure at cabforum.org>
>>>>         *Subject: *Re: [Infrastructure] Preparation of review
>>>>         period for SC30 and SC31
>>>>
>>>>         https://archive.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/2020-May/000223.html?for
>>>>         the instructions
>>>>
>>>>         On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 11:48 AM Ryan Sleevi
>>>>         <sleevi at google.com <mailto:sleevi at google.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>             Let me dig out the previous e-mail from our discussions
>>>>             about this.
>>>>
>>>>             The answer is "No, it won't work", and I was offering
>>>>             to get to it once I'm nearer to a computer that can do
>>>>             that.
>>>>
>>>>             On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 11:43 AM Dimitris Zacharopoulos
>>>>             <dzacharo at harica.gr <mailto:dzacharo at harica.gr>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>                 That's fine.
>>>>
>>>>                 Do we have the artifacts from the current official
>>>>                 master branch? I can create a PR on our official
>>>>                 repo, that contains the commits of both ballots if
>>>>                 that automatically creates new artifacts. Then, I
>>>>                 can use MS word to compare the display the changes,
>>>>                 thus creating a redline.
>>>>
>>>>                 Would this work?
>>>>
>>>>                 DZ.
>>>>
>>>>                 Jul 17, 2020 18:32:10 Jos Purvis (jopurvis)
>>>>                 <jopurvis at cisco.com <mailto:jopurvis at cisco.com>>:
>>>>
>>>>                     Hmmm. So I know we?ve never produced uploaded
>>>>                     artifacts from PRs /from other people?s forks/,
>>>>                     which makes sense?I thought that was the
>>>>                     discussion. We?ve been producing artifacts from
>>>>                     PRs of branches actually on the cabforum repo,
>>>>                     though, because a quick peruse of the S3 bucket
>>>>                     contents shows a folder for each
>>>>                     cabforum/documents branch up through
>>>>                     pandoc-travis-changes.
>>>>
>>>>                     -- 
>>>>                     Jos Purvis?(jopurvis at cisco.com
>>>>                     <mailto:jopurvis at cisco.com>)
>>>>                     .:|:.:|:. cisco systems |?Cryptographic Services
>>>>                     PGP: 0xFD802FEE07D19105 | Controls and Trust
>>>>                     Verification
>>>>
>>>>                     *From: *Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com
>>>>                     <mailto:sleevi at google.com>>
>>>>                     *Date: *Friday, July 17, 2020 at 11:07 AM
>>>>                     *To: *"Jos Purvis (jopurvis)"
>>>>                     <jopurvis at cisco.com <mailto:jopurvis at cisco.com>>
>>>>                     *Cc: *"Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA)"
>>>>                     <dzacharo at harica.gr
>>>>                     <mailto:dzacharo at harica.gr>>,
>>>>                     "infrastructure at cabforum.org
>>>>                     <mailto:infrastructure at cabforum.org>"
>>>>                     <infrastructure at cabforum.org
>>>>                     <mailto:infrastructure at cabforum.org>>
>>>>                     *Subject: *Re: [Infrastructure] Preparation of
>>>>                     review period for SC30 and SC31
>>>>
>>>>                     On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 10:50 AM Jos Purvis
>>>>                     (jopurvis) <jopurvis at cisco.com
>>>>                     <mailto:jopurvis at cisco.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>                         Hi Dimitris,
>>>>
>>>>                         For the current version in Word format, you
>>>>                         can fetch it from this link:
>>>>                         https://cabforum-travis-artifacts.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/builds/master/BR.docx
>>>>
>>>>                         That's the same link as the PDF from the
>>>>                         front page of the CABF repository, but with
>>>>                         the extension changed to docx (we need to
>>>>                         update the README on the repository to
>>>>                         reflect the new formats and whatnot!).
>>>>
>>>>                         For the SC30 and SC31 ballots, the Travis
>>>>                         build completed successfully, but it
>>>>                         doesn't look like it uploaded the resulting
>>>>                         artifacts to S3. Ryan, is that something we
>>>>                         need to fix? (Looks like that used to be
>>>>                         the default and isn't anymore?)
>>>>
>>>>                     I think there's some confusion. It was never
>>>>                     the default to upload artifacts for PRs. This
>>>>                     is the whole discussion about the need to
>>>>                     create a dedicated branch within the main CABF
>>>>                     repository, then create a PR using that, to
>>>>                     have the artifact produced. I'll see about
>>>>                     doing that later today.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     Infrastructure mailing list
>>     Infrastructure at cabforum.org  <mailto:Infrastructure at cabforum.org>
>>     https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Infrastructure mailing list
>     Infrastructure at cabforum.org <mailto:Infrastructure at cabforum.org>
>     https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20200721/fd8d1686/attachment-0001.html>

From sleevi at google.com  Wed Jul 22 08:02:43 2020
From: sleevi at google.com (Ryan Sleevi)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 11:02:43 -0400
Subject: [Infrastructure] Preparation of review period for SC30 and SC31
In-Reply-To: <d17868ce-e9ef-aaeb-e9fb-d30e28bbeb55@harica.gr>
References: <77f354e2-de7f-1c64-fb8b-1d0f9f773c9b@harica.gr>
 <ca627ffe-75b5-3da7-46a7-1754148a14b0@harica.gr>
 <4DF2449B-4FE8-4E6B-826F-8057CAFE7728@cisco.com>
 <CACvaWva7RCLnYB1zo5FfcXifH7d=+DzjXKt5CrtfcKDqpNEBHA@mail.gmail.com>
 <F99332C2-ADF3-4DA5-9D21-7200061CF828@cisco.com>
 <77747073-cfc4-45ae-85c6-2b6b916e73b9@harica.gr>
 <CACvaWvZPcP_-AFS=MNc5WOE1TspuCjYtQDL1r1OAxiT_+EMXdw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACvaWvY2H_E_kYZ7v_DRTuhpuibyGoTA4AhNCMhMvvB9WDcN1g@mail.gmail.com>
 <AD9FCFFB-BC19-4258-B110-C2C183D90996@cisco.com>
 <9a12e42c-66dc-1acd-a3df-777823a140af@harica.gr>
 <CACvaWvZ32AxYk9KEZZeymh7aTZH4x4PS1iEKrDRfpHr02i6+DQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <a98f1991-ebce-3dab-a68f-b8077d11ad99@harica.gr>
 <f48b0e3d-ff73-15db-1e8d-4310a25ea03f@harica.gr>
 <CACvaWvaxAJEkrGarZnzOgRkDjyQXWsvY7NbDHy7TuG=eYXjfhg@mail.gmail.com>
 <d17868ce-e9ef-aaeb-e9fb-d30e28bbeb55@harica.gr>
Message-ID: <CACvaWvba2kUOjQ2e38WX9QdyiCLva=ytEzBQiDF+fe9zb2+hUA@mail.gmail.com>

Eh, that's no more broken than our existing sections on that page. I
intentionally mirrored that, as opposed to forcing it not to be a
hyperlink, so that the styles would be consistent.

This definitely fits with Jos' remarks about our wiki stack ;)

On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 1:06 PM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) <
dzacharo at harica.gr> wrote:

>
>
> On 2020-07-21 7:27 ?.?., Ryan Sleevi wrote:
>
> Made edits and added screenshots. It looks like several steps had been
> omitted from my previous mail, so hopefully that helps.
>
>
> It sure does. Some text is broken under step 8, probably because they are
> partially converted to hyperlinks.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Dimitris.
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 12:42 AM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) <
> dzacharo at harica.gr> wrote:
>
>>
>> I would appreciate a review of the last two sections added in
>> https://wiki.cabforum.org/github_redline_guide before removing the
>> "under construction".
>>
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Dimitris.
>>
>>
>> On 2020-07-20 9:32 ?.?., Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) wrote:
>>
>>
>> I was out of office today so apologies for replying late. The result of
>> the process is very good and I plan on adding specific instructions on
>> https://wiki.cabforum.org/github_redline_guide. Until we reach the next
>> milestone of automatically creating a red-line, we can create a final
>> version in the Pull Request, and compare against the existing main branch.
>>
>> I have attached the resulting docx redline BRs between 1.7.0 and ballots
>> SC30+31 using the two docx versions I got from the links provided by Jos
>> and Ryan.
>>
>> Does this look good to everyone? I will do a more detailed review myself
>> tomorrow morning (Greek time) before posting to the public lists.
>>
>> Once again, a big thanks to Jos and Ryan for working on this automation.
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Dimitris.
>>
>>
>> On 2020-07-20 8:40 ?.?., Ryan Sleevi wrote:
>>
>> Dimitris: Did that work for you? I didn't hear back so wasn't sure if you
>> were sorted now with https://github.com/cabforum/documents/pull/203
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 3:09 PM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) <
>> dzacharo at harica.gr> wrote:
>>
>>> Thank you both for the quick response. I recall the instructions posted
>>> by Ryan; unfortunately I am not so familiar with these processes. I will
>>> read them more carefully during the weekend. In the meantime, if you
>>> succeed in getting a combined SC30/SC31 docx against the BRs 1.7.0 sent by
>>> Jos earlier today, that would save me a lot of time.
>>>
>>>
>>> Dimitris.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 17/7/2020 6:59 ?.?., Jos Purvis (jopurvis) wrote:
>>>
>>> Sounds good, Ryan! Dimitris, the link I provided is the official DOCX
>>> from the official master branch: that?s the 1.7.0 version of the current
>>> master-branch BRs. So that?s the current clean master version, against
>>> which you can compare something from the ballot outputs to create a binary
>>> redline. The trick is getting you something from the SC30/SC31 branches to
>>> create that redline against. ? Ryan, I?ll have a look at it today when
>>> I have a chance as well and see if I can sort it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jos Purvis (jopurvis at cisco.com)
>>> .:|:.:|:. cisco systems | Cryptographic Services
>>> PGP: 0xFD802FEE07D19105 | Controls and Trust Verification
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From: *Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com> <sleevi at google.com>
>>> *Date: *Friday, July 17, 2020 at 11:50 AM
>>> *To: *Dimitris Zacharopoulos <dzacharo at harica.gr> <dzacharo at harica.gr>
>>> *Cc: *"Jos Purvis (jopurvis)" <jopurvis at cisco.com> <jopurvis at cisco.com>,
>>> "infrastructure at cabforum.org" <infrastructure at cabforum.org>
>>> <infrastructure at cabforum.org> <infrastructure at cabforum.org>
>>> *Subject: *Re: [Infrastructure] Preparation of review period for SC30
>>> and SC31
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> https://archive.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/2020-May/000223.html for
>>> the instructions
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 11:48 AM Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Let me dig out the previous e-mail from our discussions about this.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The answer is "No, it won't work", and I was offering to get to it once
>>> I'm nearer to a computer that can do that.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 11:43 AM Dimitris Zacharopoulos <
>>> dzacharo at harica.gr> wrote:
>>>
>>> That's fine.
>>>
>>> Do we have the artifacts from the current official master branch? I can
>>> create a PR on our official repo, that contains the commits of both ballots
>>> if that automatically creates new artifacts. Then, I can use MS word to
>>> compare the display the changes, thus creating a redline.
>>>
>>> Would this work?
>>>
>>> DZ.
>>>
>>> Jul 17, 2020 18:32:10 Jos Purvis (jopurvis) <jopurvis at cisco.com>:
>>>
>>> Hmmm. So I know we?ve never produced uploaded artifacts from PRs *from
>>> other people?s forks*, which makes sense?I thought that was the
>>> discussion. We?ve been producing artifacts from PRs of branches actually on
>>> the cabforum repo, though, because a quick peruse of the S3 bucket contents
>>> shows a folder for each cabforum/documents branch up through
>>> pandoc-travis-changes.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jos Purvis (jopurvis at cisco.com)
>>> .:|:.:|:. cisco systems | Cryptographic Services
>>> PGP: 0xFD802FEE07D19105 | Controls and Trust Verification
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From: *Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com>
>>> *Date: *Friday, July 17, 2020 at 11:07 AM
>>> *To: *"Jos Purvis (jopurvis)" <jopurvis at cisco.com>
>>> *Cc: *"Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA)" <dzacharo at harica.gr>, "
>>> infrastructure at cabforum.org" <infrastructure at cabforum.org>
>>> *Subject: *Re: [Infrastructure] Preparation of review period for SC30
>>> and SC31
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 10:50 AM Jos Purvis (jopurvis) <
>>> jopurvis at cisco.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Dimitris,
>>>
>>> For the current version in Word format, you can fetch it from this link:
>>>
>>> https://cabforum-travis-artifacts.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/builds/master/BR.docx
>>>
>>> That's the same link as the PDF from the front page of the CABF
>>> repository, but with the extension changed to docx (we need to update the
>>> README on the repository to reflect the new formats and whatnot!).
>>>
>>> For the SC30 and SC31 ballots, the Travis build completed successfully,
>>> but it doesn't look like it uploaded the resulting artifacts to S3. Ryan,
>>> is that something we need to fix? (Looks like that used to be the default
>>> and isn't anymore?)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I think there's some confusion. It was never the default to upload
>>> artifacts for PRs. This is the whole discussion about the need to create a
>>> dedicated branch within the main CABF repository, then create a PR using
>>> that, to have the artifact produced. I'll see about doing that later today.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Infrastructure mailing listInfrastructure at cabforum.orghttps://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Infrastructure mailing list
>> Infrastructure at cabforum.org
>> https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20200722/69c9a157/attachment-0001.html>

From dzacharo at harica.gr  Wed Jul 22 08:39:50 2020
From: dzacharo at harica.gr (Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA))
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 18:39:50 +0300
Subject: [Infrastructure] Preparation of review period for SC30 and SC31
In-Reply-To: <CACvaWvba2kUOjQ2e38WX9QdyiCLva=ytEzBQiDF+fe9zb2+hUA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <77f354e2-de7f-1c64-fb8b-1d0f9f773c9b@harica.gr>
 <ca627ffe-75b5-3da7-46a7-1754148a14b0@harica.gr>
 <4DF2449B-4FE8-4E6B-826F-8057CAFE7728@cisco.com>
 <CACvaWva7RCLnYB1zo5FfcXifH7d=+DzjXKt5CrtfcKDqpNEBHA@mail.gmail.com>
 <F99332C2-ADF3-4DA5-9D21-7200061CF828@cisco.com>
 <77747073-cfc4-45ae-85c6-2b6b916e73b9@harica.gr>
 <CACvaWvZPcP_-AFS=MNc5WOE1TspuCjYtQDL1r1OAxiT_+EMXdw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACvaWvY2H_E_kYZ7v_DRTuhpuibyGoTA4AhNCMhMvvB9WDcN1g@mail.gmail.com>
 <AD9FCFFB-BC19-4258-B110-C2C183D90996@cisco.com>
 <9a12e42c-66dc-1acd-a3df-777823a140af@harica.gr>
 <CACvaWvZ32AxYk9KEZZeymh7aTZH4x4PS1iEKrDRfpHr02i6+DQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <a98f1991-ebce-3dab-a68f-b8077d11ad99@harica.gr>
 <f48b0e3d-ff73-15db-1e8d-4310a25ea03f@harica.gr>
 <CACvaWvaxAJEkrGarZnzOgRkDjyQXWsvY7NbDHy7TuG=eYXjfhg@mail.gmail.com>
 <d17868ce-e9ef-aaeb-e9fb-d30e28bbeb55@harica.gr>
 <CACvaWvba2kUOjQ2e38WX9QdyiCLva=ytEzBQiDF+fe9zb2+hUA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <13787c59-0cd5-3f1d-6254-64f13c7b6c00@harica.gr>



On 2020-07-22 6:02 ?.?., Ryan Sleevi wrote:
> Eh, that's no more broken than our existing sections on that page. I 
> intentionally mirrored that, as opposed to forcing it not to be a 
> hyperlink, so that the styles would be consistent.
>
> This definitely fits with Jos' remarks about our wiki stack ;)

It's not broken because I fixed it :-)

This is how it's displayed now.



This was the previous version



Dimitris.
>
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 1:06 PM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) 
> <dzacharo at harica.gr <mailto:dzacharo at harica.gr>> wrote:
>
>
>
>     On 2020-07-21 7:27 ?.?., Ryan Sleevi wrote:
>>     Made edits and added screenshots. It looks like several steps had
>>     been omitted from my previous mail, so hopefully that helps.
>
>     It sure does. Some text is broken under step 8, probably because
>     they are partially converted to hyperlinks.
>
>
>     Thanks,
>     Dimitris.
>
>
>
>>
>>     On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 12:42 AM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA)
>>     <dzacharo at harica.gr <mailto:dzacharo at harica.gr>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>         I would appreciate a review of the last two sections added in
>>         https://wiki.cabforum.org/github_redline_guide before
>>         removing the "under construction".
>>
>>
>>         Thank you,
>>         Dimitris.
>>
>>
>>         On 2020-07-20 9:32 ?.?., Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) wrote:
>>>
>>>         I was out of office today so apologies for replying late.
>>>         The result of the process is very good and I plan on adding
>>>         specific instructions on
>>>         https://wiki.cabforum.org/github_redline_guide. Until we
>>>         reach the next milestone of automatically creating a
>>>         red-line, we can create a final version in the Pull Request,
>>>         and compare against the existing main branch.
>>>
>>>         I have attached the resulting docx redline BRs between 1.7.0
>>>         and ballots SC30+31 using the two docx versions I got from
>>>         the links provided by Jos and Ryan.
>>>
>>>         Does this look good to everyone? I will do a more detailed
>>>         review myself tomorrow morning (Greek time) before posting
>>>         to the public lists.
>>>
>>>         Once again, a big thanks to Jos and Ryan for working on this
>>>         automation.
>>>
>>>
>>>         Best regards,
>>>         Dimitris.
>>>
>>>
>>>         On 2020-07-20 8:40 ?.?., Ryan Sleevi wrote:
>>>>         Dimitris: Did that work for you? I didn't hear back so
>>>>         wasn't sure if you were sorted now with
>>>>         https://github.com/cabforum/documents/pull/203
>>>>
>>>>         On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 3:09 PM Dimitris Zacharopoulos
>>>>         (HARICA) <dzacharo at harica.gr <mailto:dzacharo at harica.gr>>
>>>>         wrote:
>>>>
>>>>             Thank you both for the quick response. I recall the
>>>>             instructions posted by Ryan; unfortunately I am not so
>>>>             familiar with these processes. I will read them more
>>>>             carefully during the weekend. In the meantime, if you
>>>>             succeed in getting a combined SC30/SC31 docx against
>>>>             the BRs 1.7.0 sent by Jos earlier today, that would
>>>>             save me a lot of time.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>             Dimitris.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>             On 17/7/2020 6:59 ?.?., Jos Purvis (jopurvis) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>             Sounds good, Ryan! Dimitris, the link I provided is
>>>>>             the official DOCX from the official master branch:
>>>>>             that?s the 1.7.0 version of the current master-branch
>>>>>             BRs. So that?s the current clean master version,
>>>>>             against which you can compare something from the
>>>>>             ballot outputs to create a binary redline. The trick
>>>>>             is getting you something from the SC30/SC31 branches
>>>>>             to create that redline against. ?Ryan, I?ll have a
>>>>>             look at it today when I have a chance as well and see
>>>>>             if I can sort it.
>>>>>
>>>>>             -- 
>>>>>             Jos Purvis?(jopurvis at cisco.com
>>>>>             <mailto:jopurvis at cisco.com>)
>>>>>             .:|:.:|:. cisco systems |?Cryptographic Services
>>>>>             PGP: 0xFD802FEE07D19105 | Controls and Trust Verification
>>>>>
>>>>>             *From: *Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com>
>>>>>             <mailto:sleevi at google.com>
>>>>>             *Date: *Friday, July 17, 2020 at 11:50 AM
>>>>>             *To: *Dimitris Zacharopoulos <dzacharo at harica.gr>
>>>>>             <mailto:dzacharo at harica.gr>
>>>>>             *Cc: *"Jos Purvis (jopurvis)" <jopurvis at cisco.com>
>>>>>             <mailto:jopurvis at cisco.com>,
>>>>>             "infrastructure at cabforum.org"
>>>>>             <mailto:infrastructure at cabforum.org>
>>>>>             <infrastructure at cabforum.org>
>>>>>             <mailto:infrastructure at cabforum.org>
>>>>>             *Subject: *Re: [Infrastructure] Preparation of review
>>>>>             period for SC30 and SC31
>>>>>
>>>>>             https://archive.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/2020-May/000223.html?for
>>>>>             the instructions
>>>>>
>>>>>             On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 11:48 AM Ryan Sleevi
>>>>>             <sleevi at google.com <mailto:sleevi at google.com>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>                 Let me dig out the previous e-mail from our
>>>>>                 discussions about this.
>>>>>
>>>>>                 The answer is "No, it won't work", and I was
>>>>>                 offering to get to it once I'm nearer to a
>>>>>                 computer that can do that.
>>>>>
>>>>>                 On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 11:43 AM Dimitris
>>>>>                 Zacharopoulos <dzacharo at harica.gr
>>>>>                 <mailto:dzacharo at harica.gr>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>                     That's fine.
>>>>>
>>>>>                     Do we have the artifacts from the current
>>>>>                     official master branch? I can create a PR on
>>>>>                     our official repo, that contains the commits
>>>>>                     of both ballots if that automatically creates
>>>>>                     new artifacts. Then, I can use MS word to
>>>>>                     compare the display the changes, thus creating
>>>>>                     a redline.
>>>>>
>>>>>                     Would this work?
>>>>>
>>>>>                     DZ.
>>>>>
>>>>>                     Jul 17, 2020 18:32:10 Jos Purvis (jopurvis)
>>>>>                     <jopurvis at cisco.com <mailto:jopurvis at cisco.com>>:
>>>>>
>>>>>                         Hmmm. So I know we?ve never produced
>>>>>                         uploaded artifacts from PRs /from other
>>>>>                         people?s forks/, which makes sense?I
>>>>>                         thought that was the discussion. We?ve
>>>>>                         been producing artifacts from PRs of
>>>>>                         branches actually on the cabforum repo,
>>>>>                         though, because a quick peruse of the S3
>>>>>                         bucket contents shows a folder for each
>>>>>                         cabforum/documents branch up through
>>>>>                         pandoc-travis-changes.
>>>>>
>>>>>                         -- 
>>>>>                         Jos Purvis?(jopurvis at cisco.com
>>>>>                         <mailto:jopurvis at cisco.com>)
>>>>>                         .:|:.:|:. cisco systems |?Cryptographic
>>>>>                         Services
>>>>>                         PGP: 0xFD802FEE07D19105 | Controls and
>>>>>                         Trust Verification
>>>>>
>>>>>                         *From: *Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com
>>>>>                         <mailto:sleevi at google.com>>
>>>>>                         *Date: *Friday, July 17, 2020 at 11:07 AM
>>>>>                         *To: *"Jos Purvis (jopurvis)"
>>>>>                         <jopurvis at cisco.com
>>>>>                         <mailto:jopurvis at cisco.com>>
>>>>>                         *Cc: *"Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA)"
>>>>>                         <dzacharo at harica.gr
>>>>>                         <mailto:dzacharo at harica.gr>>,
>>>>>                         "infrastructure at cabforum.org
>>>>>                         <mailto:infrastructure at cabforum.org>"
>>>>>                         <infrastructure at cabforum.org
>>>>>                         <mailto:infrastructure at cabforum.org>>
>>>>>                         *Subject: *Re: [Infrastructure]
>>>>>                         Preparation of review period for SC30 and
>>>>>                         SC31
>>>>>
>>>>>                         On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 10:50 AM Jos
>>>>>                         Purvis (jopurvis) <jopurvis at cisco.com
>>>>>                         <mailto:jopurvis at cisco.com>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>                             Hi Dimitris,
>>>>>
>>>>>                             For the current version in Word
>>>>>                             format, you can fetch it from this link:
>>>>>                             https://cabforum-travis-artifacts.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/builds/master/BR.docx
>>>>>
>>>>>                             That's the same link as the PDF from
>>>>>                             the front page of the CABF repository,
>>>>>                             but with the extension changed to docx
>>>>>                             (we need to update the README on the
>>>>>                             repository to reflect the new formats
>>>>>                             and whatnot!).
>>>>>
>>>>>                             For the SC30 and SC31 ballots, the
>>>>>                             Travis build completed successfully,
>>>>>                             but it doesn't look like it uploaded
>>>>>                             the resulting artifacts to S3. Ryan,
>>>>>                             is that something we need to fix?
>>>>>                             (Looks like that used to be the
>>>>>                             default and isn't anymore?)
>>>>>
>>>>>                         I think there's some confusion. It was
>>>>>                         never the default to upload artifacts for
>>>>>                         PRs. This is the whole discussion about
>>>>>                         the need to create a dedicated branch
>>>>>                         within the main CABF repository, then
>>>>>                         create a PR using that, to have the
>>>>>                         artifact produced. I'll see about doing
>>>>>                         that later today.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>         _______________________________________________
>>>         Infrastructure mailing list
>>>         Infrastructure at cabforum.org  <mailto:Infrastructure at cabforum.org>
>>>         https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
>>
>>         _______________________________________________
>>         Infrastructure mailing list
>>         Infrastructure at cabforum.org <mailto:Infrastructure at cabforum.org>
>>         https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
>>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20200722/48faed38/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: aghpmjeafgiolfda.png
Type: image/png
Size: 11029 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20200722/48faed38/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: npjklcdpdjoijopf.png
Type: image/png
Size: 15657 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20200722/48faed38/attachment-0003.png>

From sleevi at google.com  Wed Jul 22 08:59:20 2020
From: sleevi at google.com (Ryan Sleevi)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 11:59:20 -0400
Subject: [Infrastructure] Preparation of review period for SC30 and SC31
In-Reply-To: <13787c59-0cd5-3f1d-6254-64f13c7b6c00@harica.gr>
References: <77f354e2-de7f-1c64-fb8b-1d0f9f773c9b@harica.gr>
 <ca627ffe-75b5-3da7-46a7-1754148a14b0@harica.gr>
 <4DF2449B-4FE8-4E6B-826F-8057CAFE7728@cisco.com>
 <CACvaWva7RCLnYB1zo5FfcXifH7d=+DzjXKt5CrtfcKDqpNEBHA@mail.gmail.com>
 <F99332C2-ADF3-4DA5-9D21-7200061CF828@cisco.com>
 <77747073-cfc4-45ae-85c6-2b6b916e73b9@harica.gr>
 <CACvaWvZPcP_-AFS=MNc5WOE1TspuCjYtQDL1r1OAxiT_+EMXdw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACvaWvY2H_E_kYZ7v_DRTuhpuibyGoTA4AhNCMhMvvB9WDcN1g@mail.gmail.com>
 <AD9FCFFB-BC19-4258-B110-C2C183D90996@cisco.com>
 <9a12e42c-66dc-1acd-a3df-777823a140af@harica.gr>
 <CACvaWvZ32AxYk9KEZZeymh7aTZH4x4PS1iEKrDRfpHr02i6+DQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <a98f1991-ebce-3dab-a68f-b8077d11ad99@harica.gr>
 <f48b0e3d-ff73-15db-1e8d-4310a25ea03f@harica.gr>
 <CACvaWvaxAJEkrGarZnzOgRkDjyQXWsvY7NbDHy7TuG=eYXjfhg@mail.gmail.com>
 <d17868ce-e9ef-aaeb-e9fb-d30e28bbeb55@harica.gr>
 <CACvaWvba2kUOjQ2e38WX9QdyiCLva=ytEzBQiDF+fe9zb2+hUA@mail.gmail.com>
 <13787c59-0cd5-3f1d-6254-64f13c7b6c00@harica.gr>
Message-ID: <CACvaWvY7MJLqw=25EZymaZXX7HsCXVkVp+E=r=CiWHvdtJwhJw@mail.gmail.com>

Yes, I'm aware you changed it.

I originally had it like that when I updated, but then reverted it (as you
can see in the edit history), because it's inconsistent with the other
links on the page - e.g. the GitHub redline. I was trying to prioritize
consistency within the instructions (e.g. look at Compare Changes)

I don't care one way or the other, but think we should at least be
consistent. If you prefer the <code> block style, which forces a newline,
would you please correct the other instances?

On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 11:40 AM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) <
dzacharo at harica.gr> wrote:

>
>
> On 2020-07-22 6:02 ?.?., Ryan Sleevi wrote:
>
> Eh, that's no more broken than our existing sections on that page. I
> intentionally mirrored that, as opposed to forcing it not to be a
> hyperlink, so that the styles would be consistent.
>
> This definitely fits with Jos' remarks about our wiki stack ;)
>
>
> It's not broken because I fixed it :-)
>
> This is how it's displayed now.
>
>
>
> This was the previous version
>
>
>
> Dimitris.
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 1:06 PM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) <
> dzacharo at harica.gr> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 2020-07-21 7:27 ?.?., Ryan Sleevi wrote:
>>
>> Made edits and added screenshots. It looks like several steps had been
>> omitted from my previous mail, so hopefully that helps.
>>
>>
>> It sure does. Some text is broken under step 8, probably because they are
>> partially converted to hyperlinks.
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Dimitris.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 12:42 AM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) <
>> dzacharo at harica.gr> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I would appreciate a review of the last two sections added in
>>> https://wiki.cabforum.org/github_redline_guide before removing the
>>> "under construction".
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>> Dimitris.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2020-07-20 9:32 ?.?., Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I was out of office today so apologies for replying late. The result of
>>> the process is very good and I plan on adding specific instructions on
>>> https://wiki.cabforum.org/github_redline_guide. Until we reach the next
>>> milestone of automatically creating a red-line, we can create a final
>>> version in the Pull Request, and compare against the existing main branch.
>>>
>>> I have attached the resulting docx redline BRs between 1.7.0 and ballots
>>> SC30+31 using the two docx versions I got from the links provided by Jos
>>> and Ryan.
>>>
>>> Does this look good to everyone? I will do a more detailed review myself
>>> tomorrow morning (Greek time) before posting to the public lists.
>>>
>>> Once again, a big thanks to Jos and Ryan for working on this automation.
>>>
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Dimitris.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2020-07-20 8:40 ?.?., Ryan Sleevi wrote:
>>>
>>> Dimitris: Did that work for you? I didn't hear back so wasn't sure if
>>> you were sorted now with https://github.com/cabforum/documents/pull/203
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 3:09 PM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) <
>>> dzacharo at harica.gr> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thank you both for the quick response. I recall the instructions posted
>>>> by Ryan; unfortunately I am not so familiar with these processes. I will
>>>> read them more carefully during the weekend. In the meantime, if you
>>>> succeed in getting a combined SC30/SC31 docx against the BRs 1.7.0 sent by
>>>> Jos earlier today, that would save me a lot of time.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dimitris.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 17/7/2020 6:59 ?.?., Jos Purvis (jopurvis) wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Sounds good, Ryan! Dimitris, the link I provided is the official DOCX
>>>> from the official master branch: that?s the 1.7.0 version of the current
>>>> master-branch BRs. So that?s the current clean master version, against
>>>> which you can compare something from the ballot outputs to create a binary
>>>> redline. The trick is getting you something from the SC30/SC31 branches to
>>>> create that redline against. ? Ryan, I?ll have a look at it today
>>>> when I have a chance as well and see if I can sort it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Jos Purvis (jopurvis at cisco.com)
>>>> .:|:.:|:. cisco systems | Cryptographic Services
>>>> PGP: 0xFD802FEE07D19105 | Controls and Trust Verification
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From: *Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com> <sleevi at google.com>
>>>> *Date: *Friday, July 17, 2020 at 11:50 AM
>>>> *To: *Dimitris Zacharopoulos <dzacharo at harica.gr> <dzacharo at harica.gr>
>>>> *Cc: *"Jos Purvis (jopurvis)" <jopurvis at cisco.com> <jopurvis at cisco.com>,
>>>> "infrastructure at cabforum.org" <infrastructure at cabforum.org>
>>>> <infrastructure at cabforum.org> <infrastructure at cabforum.org>
>>>> *Subject: *Re: [Infrastructure] Preparation of review period for SC30
>>>> and SC31
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://archive.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/2020-May/000223.html for
>>>> the instructions
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 11:48 AM Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Let me dig out the previous e-mail from our discussions about this.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The answer is "No, it won't work", and I was offering to get to it once
>>>> I'm nearer to a computer that can do that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 11:43 AM Dimitris Zacharopoulos <
>>>> dzacharo at harica.gr> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> That's fine.
>>>>
>>>> Do we have the artifacts from the current official master branch? I can
>>>> create a PR on our official repo, that contains the commits of both ballots
>>>> if that automatically creates new artifacts. Then, I can use MS word to
>>>> compare the display the changes, thus creating a redline.
>>>>
>>>> Would this work?
>>>>
>>>> DZ.
>>>>
>>>> Jul 17, 2020 18:32:10 Jos Purvis (jopurvis) <jopurvis at cisco.com>:
>>>>
>>>> Hmmm. So I know we?ve never produced uploaded artifacts from PRs *from
>>>> other people?s forks*, which makes sense?I thought that was the
>>>> discussion. We?ve been producing artifacts from PRs of branches actually on
>>>> the cabforum repo, though, because a quick peruse of the S3 bucket contents
>>>> shows a folder for each cabforum/documents branch up through
>>>> pandoc-travis-changes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Jos Purvis (jopurvis at cisco.com)
>>>> .:|:.:|:. cisco systems | Cryptographic Services
>>>> PGP: 0xFD802FEE07D19105 | Controls and Trust Verification
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From: *Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com>
>>>> *Date: *Friday, July 17, 2020 at 11:07 AM
>>>> *To: *"Jos Purvis (jopurvis)" <jopurvis at cisco.com>
>>>> *Cc: *"Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA)" <dzacharo at harica.gr>, "
>>>> infrastructure at cabforum.org" <infrastructure at cabforum.org>
>>>> *Subject: *Re: [Infrastructure] Preparation of review period for SC30
>>>> and SC31
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 10:50 AM Jos Purvis (jopurvis) <
>>>> jopurvis at cisco.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Dimitris,
>>>>
>>>> For the current version in Word format, you can fetch it from this link:
>>>>
>>>> https://cabforum-travis-artifacts.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/builds/master/BR.docx
>>>>
>>>> That's the same link as the PDF from the front page of the CABF
>>>> repository, but with the extension changed to docx (we need to update the
>>>> README on the repository to reflect the new formats and whatnot!).
>>>>
>>>> For the SC30 and SC31 ballots, the Travis build completed successfully,
>>>> but it doesn't look like it uploaded the resulting artifacts to S3. Ryan,
>>>> is that something we need to fix? (Looks like that used to be the default
>>>> and isn't anymore?)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think there's some confusion. It was never the default to upload
>>>> artifacts for PRs. This is the whole discussion about the need to create a
>>>> dedicated branch within the main CABF repository, then create a PR using
>>>> that, to have the artifact produced. I'll see about doing that later today.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Infrastructure mailing listInfrastructure at cabforum.orghttps://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Infrastructure mailing list
>>> Infrastructure at cabforum.org
>>> https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
>>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20200722/50a457a6/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: aghpmjeafgiolfda.png
Type: image/png
Size: 11029 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20200722/50a457a6/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: npjklcdpdjoijopf.png
Type: image/png
Size: 15657 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20200722/50a457a6/attachment-0003.png>

From dzacharo at harica.gr  Wed Jul 22 09:03:55 2020
From: dzacharo at harica.gr (Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA))
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 19:03:55 +0300
Subject: [Infrastructure] Preparation of review period for SC30 and SC31
In-Reply-To: <CACvaWvY7MJLqw=25EZymaZXX7HsCXVkVp+E=r=CiWHvdtJwhJw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <77f354e2-de7f-1c64-fb8b-1d0f9f773c9b@harica.gr>
 <4DF2449B-4FE8-4E6B-826F-8057CAFE7728@cisco.com>
 <CACvaWva7RCLnYB1zo5FfcXifH7d=+DzjXKt5CrtfcKDqpNEBHA@mail.gmail.com>
 <F99332C2-ADF3-4DA5-9D21-7200061CF828@cisco.com>
 <77747073-cfc4-45ae-85c6-2b6b916e73b9@harica.gr>
 <CACvaWvZPcP_-AFS=MNc5WOE1TspuCjYtQDL1r1OAxiT_+EMXdw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACvaWvY2H_E_kYZ7v_DRTuhpuibyGoTA4AhNCMhMvvB9WDcN1g@mail.gmail.com>
 <AD9FCFFB-BC19-4258-B110-C2C183D90996@cisco.com>
 <9a12e42c-66dc-1acd-a3df-777823a140af@harica.gr>
 <CACvaWvZ32AxYk9KEZZeymh7aTZH4x4PS1iEKrDRfpHr02i6+DQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <a98f1991-ebce-3dab-a68f-b8077d11ad99@harica.gr>
 <f48b0e3d-ff73-15db-1e8d-4310a25ea03f@harica.gr>
 <CACvaWvaxAJEkrGarZnzOgRkDjyQXWsvY7NbDHy7TuG=eYXjfhg@mail.gmail.com>
 <d17868ce-e9ef-aaeb-e9fb-d30e28bbeb55@harica.gr>
 <CACvaWvba2kUOjQ2e38WX9QdyiCLva=ytEzBQiDF+fe9zb2+hUA@mail.gmail.com>
 <13787c59-0cd5-3f1d-6254-64f13c7b6c00@harica.gr>
 <CACvaWvY7MJLqw=25EZymaZXX7HsCXVkVp+E=r=CiWHvdtJwhJw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <16cc29e4-3f4a-5816-fe85-70db8052d9f0@harica.gr>



On 2020-07-22 6:59 ?.?., Ryan Sleevi wrote:
> Yes, I'm aware you changed it.
>
> I originally had it like that when I updated, but then reverted it (as 
> you can see in the edit history), because it's inconsistent with the 
> other links on the page - e.g. the GitHub redline. I was trying to 
> prioritize consistency within the instructions (e.g. look at Compare 
> Changes)
>
> I don't care one way or the other, but think we should at least be 
> consistent. If you prefer the <code> block style, which forces a 
> newline, would you please correct the other instances?

I see what you mean. I didn't notice the other cases. In any case, since 
I will probably be the one going over these instructions, I think I will 
revert to what you had :)


Thanks,
Dimitris.

>
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 11:40 AM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) 
> <dzacharo at harica.gr <mailto:dzacharo at harica.gr>> wrote:
>
>
>
>     On 2020-07-22 6:02 ?.?., Ryan Sleevi wrote:
>>     Eh, that's no more broken than our existing sections on that
>>     page. I intentionally mirrored that, as opposed to forcing it not
>>     to be a hyperlink, so that the styles would be consistent.
>>
>>     This definitely fits with Jos' remarks about our wiki stack ;)
>
>     It's not broken because I fixed it :-)
>
>     This is how it's displayed now.
>
>
>
>     This was the previous version
>
>
>
>     Dimitris.
>>
>>     On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 1:06 PM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA)
>>     <dzacharo at harica.gr <mailto:dzacharo at harica.gr>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>         On 2020-07-21 7:27 ?.?., Ryan Sleevi wrote:
>>>         Made edits and added screenshots. It looks like several
>>>         steps had been omitted from my previous mail, so hopefully
>>>         that helps.
>>
>>         It sure does. Some text is broken under step 8, probably
>>         because they are partially converted to hyperlinks.
>>
>>
>>         Thanks,
>>         Dimitris.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>         On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 12:42 AM Dimitris Zacharopoulos
>>>         (HARICA) <dzacharo at harica.gr <mailto:dzacharo at harica.gr>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>             I would appreciate a review of the last two sections
>>>             added in https://wiki.cabforum.org/github_redline_guide
>>>             before removing the "under construction".
>>>
>>>
>>>             Thank you,
>>>             Dimitris.
>>>
>>>
>>>             On 2020-07-20 9:32 ?.?., Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA)
>>>             wrote:
>>>>
>>>>             I was out of office today so apologies for replying
>>>>             late. The result of the process is very good and I plan
>>>>             on adding specific instructions on
>>>>             https://wiki.cabforum.org/github_redline_guide. Until
>>>>             we reach the next milestone of automatically creating a
>>>>             red-line, we can create a final version in the Pull
>>>>             Request, and compare against the existing main branch.
>>>>
>>>>             I have attached the resulting docx redline BRs between
>>>>             1.7.0 and ballots SC30+31 using the two docx versions I
>>>>             got from the links provided by Jos and Ryan.
>>>>
>>>>             Does this look good to everyone? I will do a more
>>>>             detailed review myself tomorrow morning (Greek time)
>>>>             before posting to the public lists.
>>>>
>>>>             Once again, a big thanks to Jos and Ryan for working on
>>>>             this automation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>             Best regards,
>>>>             Dimitris.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>             On 2020-07-20 8:40 ?.?., Ryan Sleevi wrote:
>>>>>             Dimitris: Did that work for you? I didn't hear back so
>>>>>             wasn't sure if you were sorted now with
>>>>>             https://github.com/cabforum/documents/pull/203
>>>>>
>>>>>             On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 3:09 PM Dimitris Zacharopoulos
>>>>>             (HARICA) <dzacharo at harica.gr
>>>>>             <mailto:dzacharo at harica.gr>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>                 Thank you both for the quick response. I recall
>>>>>                 the instructions posted by Ryan; unfortunately I
>>>>>                 am not so familiar with these processes. I will
>>>>>                 read them more carefully during the weekend. In
>>>>>                 the meantime, if you succeed in getting a combined
>>>>>                 SC30/SC31 docx against the BRs 1.7.0 sent by Jos
>>>>>                 earlier today, that would save me a lot of time.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>                 Dimitris.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>                 On 17/7/2020 6:59 ?.?., Jos Purvis (jopurvis) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>                 Sounds good, Ryan! Dimitris, the link I provided
>>>>>>                 is the official DOCX from the official master
>>>>>>                 branch: that?s the 1.7.0 version of the current
>>>>>>                 master-branch BRs. So that?s the current clean
>>>>>>                 master version, against which you can compare
>>>>>>                 something from the ballot outputs to create a
>>>>>>                 binary redline. The trick is getting you
>>>>>>                 something from the SC30/SC31 branches to create
>>>>>>                 that redline against. ?Ryan, I?ll have a look at
>>>>>>                 it today when I have a chance as well and see if
>>>>>>                 I can sort it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>                 -- 
>>>>>>                 Jos Purvis?(jopurvis at cisco.com
>>>>>>                 <mailto:jopurvis at cisco.com>)
>>>>>>                 .:|:.:|:. cisco systems |?Cryptographic Services
>>>>>>                 PGP: 0xFD802FEE07D19105 | Controls and Trust
>>>>>>                 Verification
>>>>>>
>>>>>>                 *From: *Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com>
>>>>>>                 <mailto:sleevi at google.com>
>>>>>>                 *Date: *Friday, July 17, 2020 at 11:50 AM
>>>>>>                 *To: *Dimitris Zacharopoulos <dzacharo at harica.gr>
>>>>>>                 <mailto:dzacharo at harica.gr>
>>>>>>                 *Cc: *"Jos Purvis (jopurvis)"
>>>>>>                 <jopurvis at cisco.com> <mailto:jopurvis at cisco.com>,
>>>>>>                 "infrastructure at cabforum.org"
>>>>>>                 <mailto:infrastructure at cabforum.org>
>>>>>>                 <infrastructure at cabforum.org>
>>>>>>                 <mailto:infrastructure at cabforum.org>
>>>>>>                 *Subject: *Re: [Infrastructure] Preparation of
>>>>>>                 review period for SC30 and SC31
>>>>>>
>>>>>>                 https://archive.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/2020-May/000223.html?for
>>>>>>                 the instructions
>>>>>>
>>>>>>                 On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 11:48 AM Ryan Sleevi
>>>>>>                 <sleevi at google.com <mailto:sleevi at google.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>                     Let me dig out the previous e-mail from our
>>>>>>                     discussions about this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>                     The answer is "No, it won't work", and I was
>>>>>>                     offering to get to it once I'm nearer to a
>>>>>>                     computer that can do that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>                     On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 11:43 AM Dimitris
>>>>>>                     Zacharopoulos <dzacharo at harica.gr
>>>>>>                     <mailto:dzacharo at harica.gr>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>                         That's fine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>                         Do we have the artifacts from the current
>>>>>>                         official master branch? I can create a PR
>>>>>>                         on our official repo, that contains the
>>>>>>                         commits of both ballots if that
>>>>>>                         automatically creates new artifacts.
>>>>>>                         Then, I can use MS word to compare the
>>>>>>                         display the changes, thus creating a redline.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>                         Would this work?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>                         DZ.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>                         Jul 17, 2020 18:32:10 Jos Purvis
>>>>>>                         (jopurvis) <jopurvis at cisco.com
>>>>>>                         <mailto:jopurvis at cisco.com>>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>                             Hmmm. So I know we?ve never produced
>>>>>>                             uploaded artifacts from PRs /from
>>>>>>                             other people?s forks/, which makes
>>>>>>                             sense?I thought that was the
>>>>>>                             discussion. We?ve been producing
>>>>>>                             artifacts from PRs of branches
>>>>>>                             actually on the cabforum repo,
>>>>>>                             though, because a quick peruse of the
>>>>>>                             S3 bucket contents shows a folder for
>>>>>>                             each cabforum/documents branch up
>>>>>>                             through pandoc-travis-changes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>                             -- 
>>>>>>                             Jos Purvis?(jopurvis at cisco.com
>>>>>>                             <mailto:jopurvis at cisco.com>)
>>>>>>                             .:|:.:|:. cisco systems
>>>>>>                             |?Cryptographic Services
>>>>>>                             PGP: 0xFD802FEE07D19105 | Controls
>>>>>>                             and Trust Verification
>>>>>>
>>>>>>                             *From: *Ryan Sleevi
>>>>>>                             <sleevi at google.com
>>>>>>                             <mailto:sleevi at google.com>>
>>>>>>                             *Date: *Friday, July 17, 2020 at 11:07 AM
>>>>>>                             *To: *"Jos Purvis (jopurvis)"
>>>>>>                             <jopurvis at cisco.com
>>>>>>                             <mailto:jopurvis at cisco.com>>
>>>>>>                             *Cc: *"Dimitris Zacharopoulos
>>>>>>                             (HARICA)" <dzacharo at harica.gr
>>>>>>                             <mailto:dzacharo at harica.gr>>,
>>>>>>                             "infrastructure at cabforum.org
>>>>>>                             <mailto:infrastructure at cabforum.org>"
>>>>>>                             <infrastructure at cabforum.org
>>>>>>                             <mailto:infrastructure at cabforum.org>>
>>>>>>                             *Subject: *Re: [Infrastructure]
>>>>>>                             Preparation of review period for SC30
>>>>>>                             and SC31
>>>>>>
>>>>>>                             On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 10:50 AM Jos
>>>>>>                             Purvis (jopurvis) <jopurvis at cisco.com
>>>>>>                             <mailto:jopurvis at cisco.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>                                 Hi Dimitris,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>                                 For the current version in Word
>>>>>>                                 format, you can fetch it from
>>>>>>                                 this link:
>>>>>>                                 https://cabforum-travis-artifacts.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/builds/master/BR.docx
>>>>>>
>>>>>>                                 That's the same link as the PDF
>>>>>>                                 from the front page of the CABF
>>>>>>                                 repository, but with the
>>>>>>                                 extension changed to docx (we
>>>>>>                                 need to update the README on the
>>>>>>                                 repository to reflect the new
>>>>>>                                 formats and whatnot!).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>                                 For the SC30 and SC31 ballots,
>>>>>>                                 the Travis build completed
>>>>>>                                 successfully, but it doesn't look
>>>>>>                                 like it uploaded the resulting
>>>>>>                                 artifacts to S3. Ryan, is that
>>>>>>                                 something we need to fix? (Looks
>>>>>>                                 like that used to be the default
>>>>>>                                 and isn't anymore?)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>                             I think there's some confusion. It
>>>>>>                             was never the default to upload
>>>>>>                             artifacts for PRs. This is the whole
>>>>>>                             discussion about the need to create a
>>>>>>                             dedicated branch within the main CABF
>>>>>>                             repository, then create a PR using
>>>>>>                             that, to have the artifact produced.
>>>>>>                             I'll see about doing that later today.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>             _______________________________________________
>>>>             Infrastructure mailing list
>>>>             Infrastructure at cabforum.org  <mailto:Infrastructure at cabforum.org>
>>>>             https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
>>>
>>>             _______________________________________________
>>>             Infrastructure mailing list
>>>             Infrastructure at cabforum.org
>>>             <mailto:Infrastructure at cabforum.org>
>>>             https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
>>>
>>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20200722/01417387/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: aghpmjeafgiolfda.png
Type: image/png
Size: 11029 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20200722/01417387/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: npjklcdpdjoijopf.png
Type: image/png
Size: 15657 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20200722/01417387/attachment-0003.png>

From sleevi at google.com  Mon Jul 27 09:24:10 2020
From: sleevi at google.com (Ryan Sleevi)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 12:24:10 -0400
Subject: [Infrastructure] Wiki Review
In-Reply-To: <97D7E695-5000-4EC0-B0C6-6B58B63D19E5@cisco.com>
References: <97D7E695-5000-4EC0-B0C6-6B58B63D19E5@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <CACvaWvaf6RxJcokgjYheLO0DU70Jvfa0UcQ3=tsswGDNVz8=qQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 3:20 PM Jos Purvis (jopurvis) <jopurvis at cisco.com>
wrote:

> After last week?s meeting and some intervening thought, I wanted to put
> this out there and let it percolate: we can discuss it here and then pick
> it up at the next meeting as well.
>
>
>
> When we migrated to Dokuwiki a year ago (was it only a year? How time
> flies when you?re coping with global disasters?), much of the discussions
> around choice of software revolved around what people had experience
> operating, as the wiki options available were generally equivalent. We?ve
> now had a year in the new software to shake things out and find our feet,
> and I?ve definitely heard some issues people still have:
>
>    - Uploading and linking media is difficult and non-obvious;
>    - Dokuwiki basically forces wiki-markup editing mode rather than
>    WYSIWYG, as the WYSIWYG plugin is unpredictably functional?indeed, that?s
>    one thing that blocked us from upgrading to the latest Dokuwiki, as it?s
>    not compatible with the new version and its author doesn?t seem inclined to
>    fix that;
>    - The markdown interpretation in Dokuwiki creates extra work in
>    translating from email notes and Etherpad, as indentation and lists are
>    prickly and particular about formatting.
>
>
>
> Those are the issues I?m aware of. My questions are these:
>
>    1. Is the list of issues above complete? Are there others to be added?
>    Should these be tracked in GH issues or similar?
>
> Does Dokuwiki even support Markdown (I mean, absent a plugin)? Am I
holding it wrong? Just updating the GH pull request instructions was... a
pulling and gnashing of teeth, and it's decidedly non-Markdown syntax
didn't help :)


>
>    1.
>    2. How happy are we with Dokuwiki as a platform overall? Should we
>    poll the Forum to find out their level of satisfaction with it?
>    3. How should we prioritize fixing these issues? Are they serious
>    enough (individually or in aggregate) to warrant exploring moving to
>    another platform?
>
>

> Overall, I think there?s something to be said for polling the Forum for
> their satisfaction with our current suite of tools (GH, Dokuwiki, Webex),
> but I wanted to start with the wiki as the first step as it?s the one I?ve
> heard the most grumbling about.
>

I'm encouraged that Dokuwiki is the one that have folks the loudest ;)

That said, I'm concerned re: prioritization. Is the Wiki all that
interacted with? Is the most grumbling tied to the most disruption to the
day-to-day activities of the Forum?

I would think our main areas would be on the regular activities: preparing
(and previewing) ballots and ballot production, enabling ballot discussion,
critical infrastructure like the mail list, tools for notetaking
(Etherpad?) and tracking (project boards and issues?), things of that
nature. In short, automating the most time-consuming tasks and making sure
the day-to-day functioning is smooth.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20200727/4748caad/attachment.html>

From jopurvis at cisco.com  Tue Jul 28 13:26:25 2020
From: jopurvis at cisco.com (Jos Purvis (jopurvis))
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 20:26:25 +0000
Subject: [Infrastructure] Meeting tomorrow
Message-ID: <E8CF9C44-5513-49FC-834D-A13283F0DA58@cisco.com>

I won?t be able to make the meeting tomorrow, as we?re in all-day annual strategy/planning meetings this week. Y?all are free to go ahead and meet (meeting should be set up to allow alternate hosts). Talk with everyone at the next meeting, if not before!

 

 

-- 
Jos Purvis (jopurvis at cisco.com)
.:|:.:|:. cisco systems | Cryptographic Services
PGP: 0xFD802FEE07D19105 | Controls and Trust Verification

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20200728/fb7a4e36/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3699 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20200728/fb7a4e36/attachment.p7s>