[cabfpub] RFC 3647 Formatting of EV Guidelines and BaselineRequirements

Tue Feb 11 16:21:24 UTC 2014

I still don´t see it because if so, our CABF docs will be dependent on the new RFCs on this matter. I suggest/prefer the ETSI approach, in every "policy" document, there´s an annex at the end with a cross reference between the RFC and the ETSI one. This way, you can update and improve the CABF docs and only refer to some RFC clauses, and or when a new RFC replaces the 3647 (as it did with the 2527), only need to check the new sections and modify the annex, and (maybe) not the whole document. Basically we have the control of our documents, in style, format and content and only refer to some other when needed.

Iñigo Barreira
Responsable del Área técnica
i-barreira at izenpe.net

945067705

ERNE! Baliteke mezu honen zatiren bat edo mezu osoa legez babestuta egotea. Mezua badu bere hartzailea. Okerreko helbidera heldu bada (helbidea gaizki idatzi, transmisioak huts egin) eman abisu igorleari, korreo honi erantzuna. KONTUZ!
ATENCION! Este mensaje contiene informacion privilegiada o confidencial a la que solo tiene derecho a acceder el destinatario. Si usted lo recibe por error le agradeceriamos que no hiciera uso de la informacion y que se pusiese en contacto con el remitente.

De: Jeremy Rowley [mailto:jeremy.rowley at digicert.com] 
Enviado el: martes, 11 de febrero de 2014 17:07
Para: Barreira Iglesias, Iñigo; ben at digicert.com; public at cabforum.org
Asunto: RE: [cabfpub] RFC 3647 Formatting of EV Guidelines and BaselineRequirements

RFC 3647 is a recommended format for a CP.  The baseline requirements are a CP.  Putting the BRs and EV Guidelines in the recommended format simplifies the comparison between a CA's practices and the industry requirements.  If there are "holes", it's simply because we lack requirements in that area. Reformatting the CP really shows where we are deficient in our requirements.  I agree with Kirk that we shouldn't create requirements where there aren't problems, but some of these "hole" topics may be worth discussing further.

jeremy 

From: public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of i-barreira at izenpe.net
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 2:23 AM
To: ben at digicert.com; public at cabforum.org
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] RFC 3647 Formatting of EV Guidelines and BaselineRequirements

Ben,

I sent some comments on this RFC 3647 formatting and basically, don´t see the need and there are many "holes" to cover. This RFC is for CAs saying what we do and how, but the CABF doc is a recommendations/requirements on CAs to make things, don´t see the parallelism.

Iñigo Barreira
Responsable del Área técnica
i-barreira at izenpe.net

945067705

ERNE! Baliteke mezu honen zatiren bat edo mezu osoa legez babestuta egotea. Mezua badu bere hartzailea. Okerreko helbidera heldu bada (helbidea gaizki idatzi, transmisioak huts egin) eman abisu igorleari, korreo honi erantzuna. KONTUZ!
ATENCION! Este mensaje contiene informacion privilegiada o confidencial a la que solo tiene derecho a acceder el destinatario. Si usted lo recibe por error le agradeceriamos que no hiciera uso de la informacion y que se pusiese en contacto con el remitente.

De: public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] En nombre de Ben Wilson
Enviado el: lunes, 10 de febrero de 2014 20:49
Para: public at cabforum.org
Asunto: [cabfpub] RFC 3647 Formatting of EV Guidelines and BaselineRequirements

In order to move another step closer on this before the Working Group meeting, would there be any objection if I were to address comments we've received thus far to the rough drafts and send out new redlined versions?  Otherwise, we might not have enough to review and discuss, and I don't see the need to wait until the face-to-face meeting.  If you do object, then please send me a brief synopsis of what you intend to say during the RFC 3647 working session, and I will put you on the agenda so that you can speak.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20140211/2792ffb1/attachment-0003.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 19121 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20140211/2792ffb1/attachment-0003.png>