[Infrastructure] Reviving SC26 (Pandoc-Friendly Formatting)

[Ben Wilson]

Hi All,

I have the documents that Jos sent open in Acrobat (.pdf), Word (.docx),
Firefox (.html), and Typora (.md from GitHub).

Is there anything I can do to help?  Is there anything I should look at
specifically?

Also, I notice that the .md and .html versions have a lot of HTML metadata
(shown with Typora/Firefox, but not readily shown in Word/Acrobat or online
GitHub). I apologize if you've already discussed this, what is the
recommended document-production flow? Which one is the source? What
processes run in the background?  I think I'm missing some pieces of the
puzzle.

Thanks,
Ben

On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 7:24 AM Jos Purvis (jopurvis) <jopurvis at cisco.com>
wrote:

> Let’s go with your wording—much more comprehensible to the non-git-folks.
> 😊 Perfect. I’ll put out the ballot with that today. Thanks!
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Jos Purvis (jopurvis at cisco.com)
> .:|:.:|:. cisco systems  | Cryptographic Services
> PGP: 0xFD802FEE07D19105  | +1 919.991.9114 (desk)
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com>
> *Date: *Thursday, March 12, 2020 at 8:57 PM
> *To: *"Jos Purvis (jopurvis)" <jopurvis at cisco.com>
> *Cc: *"infrastructure at cabforum.org" <infrastructure at cabforum.org>, Tim
> Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com>
> *Subject: *Re: [Infrastructure] Reviving SC26 (Pandoc-Friendly Formatting)
>
>
>
> haha, I keep trying to give you an easier out :)
>
>
>
> "If Ballot SC27 is adopted, the modifications shall be as captured in this
> redline:
>
> [link]
>
> If Ballot SC27 fails to be adopted following the IP review period, the
> modifications shall be as above, except as follows: Section 3.2.2.4 shall
> be unmodified from its current form in v1.6.8, and Appendix C, which will
> not have been adopted, shall not be modified as part of this ballot."
>
>
>
> That said, since we discussed attaching .patch files on the last call,
> it's also fairly easy to just hand-edit the patch file to remove those
> changes :)
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 6:52 PM Jos Purvis (jopurvis) <jopurvis at cisco.com>
> wrote:
>
> Sure! I'll have a look. I think you're right--it's pretty much just the
> addition of Appendix C and then a little bit in the middle of the document,
> and I think I did those as atomic changes, so would it work to say, "if
> SC27 is not adopted, then commits xyzpdq1 and xyzpdq2 will be redacted" and
> have that suffice?
>
>
>
> --
> Jos Purvis (jopurvis at cisco.com)
> .:|:.:|:. cisco systems  | Cryptographic Services
> PGP: 0xFD802FEE07D19105  | Controls & Trust Verification
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com>
> *Date: *Thursday, 12 March, 2020 at 16:50
> *To: *"Jos Purvis (jopurvis)" <jopurvis at cisco.com>
> *Cc: *"infrastructure at cabforum.org" <infrastructure at cabforum.org>, Tim
> Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com>
> *Subject: *Re: [Infrastructure] Reviving SC26 (Pandoc-Friendly Formatting)
>
>
>
> I *think* we might be able to say that if SC27 is not adopted, the
> modifications to section X and Appendix Y (I think it's only two sections)
> would not apply. Smithing is needed for the ballot text (to make sure the
> text is included in the ballot about what doesn't apply), but that could
> expedite things.
>
>
>
> Do you want to try that?
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 4:25 PM Jos Purvis (jopurvis) <jopurvis at cisco.com>
> wrote:
>
> OK! After yesterday's bug-ironing on Github, it looks like maybe we're
> there. Just to check, it looks like the guidance for the ballot would be
> this:
>
> <snip!>
>
> If SC29 passes, this ballot is unaffected, as they do not modify the same
> document (BRs vs. NCSSR)
>
> If SC27 ends its review period without IPR exception and is accepted into
> master, then this ballot will implement the following changes:
>
>             https://github.com/cabforum/documents/compare/4f3f38d..8b70d19
> (modulo document date and version number)
>
> </snip!>
>
> Since we figured out yesterday that there are some changes that will
> supersede the SC27 content, I'll time this ballot's discussion period to
> start after the IPR for SC27—otherwise we have to prepare a separate commit
> that implements only the non-SC27 fixes (which I can do, but would prefer
> not to have to 😊 ).
>
>
>
> Sound good?
>
>
>
> --
> Jos Purvis (jopurvis at cisco.com)
> .:|:.:|:. cisco systems  | Cryptographic Services
> PGP: 0xFD802FEE07D19105  | Controls & Trust Verification
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com>
> *Date: *Wednesday, 11 March, 2020 at 12:35
> *To: *"Jos Purvis (jopurvis)" <jopurvis at cisco.com>
> *Cc: *Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com>, "
> infrastructure at cabforum.org" <infrastructure at cabforum.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [Infrastructure] Reviving SC26 (Pandoc-Friendly Formatting)
>
>
>
> Jos,
>
>
>
> I updated to a PR with https://github.com/cabforum/documents/pull/165 and
> left several (hopefully minor) comments. There was still one area that
> accidentally reverted part of SC24, regarding underscores.
>
>
>
> That said, as far as I could tell, your ballot didn't/doesn't conflict
> with SC27 - that is, you do not modify the same sections (3.2.2.4, Appendix
> C). Is that right? If so, we may be able to revert that change* and kick
> off this discussion
>
>
>
> * If we do go the revert route, let's sync up on Slack, just to make sure
> that if/when SC26 is accepted and merged upstream, it doesn't accidentally
> revert SC27 from upstream. Because
> https://github.com/cabforum/documents/pull/165/commits/549dcc6dc40898e9862fd49f2a5b70f7206b1793 was
> something you hand-merged, it just requires a few extra steps to do cleanly
> :)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Infrastructure mailing list
> Infrastructure at cabforum.org
> http://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20200316/252af807/attachment.html>