[cabfcert_policy] Updated Draft of BRs based on meetings

[Ben Wilson]

Many months ago I prepared a draft that copied that Network Security
language into the document instead of just the cross references.  Should we
do that as one of our next steps? 

 

From: Mads Egil Henriksveen [mailto:Mads.Henriksveen at buypass.no] 
Sent: Friday, July 3, 2015 12:26 AM
To: Ben Wilson; policyreview at cabforum.org
Subject: RE: Updated Draft of BRs based on meetings

 

Hi Ben

 

My understanding of the status of this working group is that we are to "fill
in the blanks" in the current BR with wordings from the ETSI, WebTrust, NIST
CP etc. 

 

However, I noticed during the Zurich F2F-meeting a need for formatting the
Network Security Controls according to the RFC 3647 similar to the BR. Could
this be accomplished by including the NetSec-requirements in this BR? And
should this be given priority? I think both Webtrust and ETSI people was
eager to get this done.

 

Regards

Mads

 

 

From: policyreview-bounces at cabforum.org
<mailto:policyreview-bounces at cabforum.org>
[mailto:policyreview-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Ben Wilson
Sent: 2. juli 2015 20:44
To: policyreview at cabforum.org <mailto:policyreview at cabforum.org> 
Subject: [cabfcert_policy] Updated Draft of BRs based on meetings

 

Here is the updated version of the draft of the Baseline Requirements based
on the last few meetings that we've had.   (Just an FYI - It doesn't yet
reflect version 1.3.1 after Ballot 147 - Attorney Accountant Letter
Changes.)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://cabforum.org/pipermail/policyreview/attachments/20150721/d41c754a/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4954 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : https://cabforum.org/pipermail/policyreview/attachments/20150721/d41c754a/attachment.bin