[cabfcert_policy] Conflict Merging Master into ClarifyCADefinition

[Dimitris Zacharopoulos]

And of course the plain text conversion messed it up :) I hope you can 
understand the description of what happened and please let me know if 
you have any further questions.

Dimitris.

On 18/5/2018 10:07 μμ, Dimitris Zacharopoulos wrote:
>
>
> On 18/5/2018 7:39 μμ, Ben Wilson wrote:
>> Dimitris,
>> Github says you want to "merge 6 commits into master from 
>> ClarifyCADefinition2".  Shouldn't it be the other way around?
>> Thanks,
>> Ben
>
> No. ClarifyCADefinition2 includes all commits that advanced since we 
> created the ClarifyCADefinition branch of the master branch. Here is 
> an "illustration" of what happened.
>
> BR v1.5.3 (master)  --->     WG (ClarifyCADefinition)
>      |                                               |
>      |                                      WG meeting changes
>      |                                               |
> BR v1.5.4 (master)                     |
>      |                                               |
>      |                                               |
>      |                                      WG more meeting changes
> ...
> BR v1.5.7 (master)                     |
>
>
>
> So, all this time, the master branch was advancing and so was the 
> ClarifyCADefinition, but these master commits were not merged to the 
> "ClarifyCADefinition" branch which made them out of sync. This created 
> a conflict in 3.2.2.4.1 which had to be resolved manually. Instead of 
> updating the "ClarifyCADefinition" branch, I created a new one that 
> includes all commits from BR 1.5.3 to 1.5.7 AND the commits performed 
> by the WG in the ClarifyCADefinition branch.
>
> The pull request shows the comparison of changes against the existing 
> final version or BR 1.5.7. The request should not be merged. It is 
> here just to display the changes proposed by the WG.
>
>
> Dimitris.
>
>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Dimitris Zacharopoulos <jimmy at it.auth.gr>
>> Sent: Friday, May 18, 2018 2:32 AM
>> To: Ben Wilson <ben.wilson at digicert.com>; policyreview at cabforum.org
>> Cc: Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com>
>> Subject: Re: Conflict Merging Master into ClarifyCADefinition
>>
>> On 17/5/2018 8:01 μμ, Ben Wilson wrote:
>>> I got some help taking a look at the GitHUb branch we've been 
>>> working on.  Before I can merge Master into ClarifyCADefinition, we 
>>> need to resolve one conflict:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ##### 3.2.2.4.1 Validating the Applicant as a Domain Contact
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Confirming the Applicant's control over the FQDN by validating the 
>>> Applicant is the Domain Contact directly with the Domain Name 
>>> Registrar. This method may only be used if:
>>>
>>> 1.            The CA authenticates the Applicant's identity under BR 
>>> Section 3.2.2.1 and the authority of the Applicant Representative 
>>> under BR Section 3.2.5, OR
>>>
>>> 2.            The CA authenticates the Applicant's identity under EV 
>>> Guidelines Section 11.2 and the agency of the Certificate Approver 
>>> under EV Guidelines Section 11.8; OR
>>>
>>> <<<<<<< ClarifyCADefinition
>>>
>>> 3.            The TSP also operates the Domain Name Registrar, or is 
>>> an Affiliate of the Registrar, of the Base Domain Name.
>>>
>>> Note: Once the FQDN has been validated using this method, the CA MAY 
>>> also issue Certificates for other FQDNs that end with all the labels 
>>> of the validated FQDN.  This method is suitable for validating 
>>> Wildcard Domain Names.
>>>
>>> =======
>>>
>>> 3.            The CA is also the Domain Name Registrar, or an 
>>> Affiliate of the Registrar, of the Base Domain Name.
>>>
>>> Note: Once the FQDN has been validated using this method, the CA MAY 
>>> also issue Certificates for other FQDNs that end with all the labels 
>>> of the validated FQDN. This method is suitable for validating 
>>> Wildcard Domain Names. For certificates issued on or after August 1, 
>>> 2018, this method SHALL NOT be used for validation, and completed 
>>> validations using this method SHALL NOT be used for the issuance of 
>>> certificates.
>>>
>> It's funny that we have to resolve this conflict for one of the 
>> to-be-deprecated methods :)
>>
>> Anyway, I was able to resolve the conflict and created a 
>> conflict-free branch (ClarifyCADefinition2) on GitHub. Here is the 
>> pull request that displays the proposed changes to the current 
>> Baseline Requirements (1.5.7).
>>
>> https://clicktime.symantec.com/a/1/TQuzgAmQN2I99tyRFr9s_dGR1eLNl7wVotVTcjN_OvM=?d=wzom4z4hSPvnH6k_Tkla9H5zi7pXsf6ofZZFElApfn3KPq4H3b8QXJgZW3RsZE5g9Yevm9fWQQAOhlktspwKU1ELOWHiqma5dIQHcMP0BeT11sZ5-U2k6hdpVAHN80ZcwuzyvNo6qwxfbt4OJurrEweDvIo4WAUKI4E-Hh1zDWWL9b3Ot33_bxqTNIKsJBxkScjR7z_R-4-TTma9j_lI-KV3p_sgpkilMNdgwmqVz_yWSCD7sYEEEeHUAYyNbc_FdFp4-vdCCV2uuZnbd-raS_QzcXcybInmyPsCZgCeAWvaCGNWT7WbOfo6NLyduCqD74E9tkIb5JJ2Yq-T9NnT8eA4SEH-jxVfHtA5AWuqIKcx8SqIzkAP0ap2SN6bAmIEZZrLwDB5ULqouA%3D%3D&u=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fcabforum%2Fdocuments%2Fpull%2F95%2Ffiles%23diff-7f6d14a20e7f3beb696b45e1bf8196f2 
>>
>>
>>
>> Dimitris.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Policyreview mailing list
> Policyreview at cabforum.org
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/policyreview
>