[cabfpub] Ballot 146 - Convert Baseline Requirements to RFC 3647 Framework

[Ben Wilson]

That's a good idea.  This can be v.1.3.
________________________________
From: Peter Bowen<mailto:pzbowen at gmail.com>
Sent: ‎4/‎11/‎2015 10:37 AM
To: Ben Wilson<mailto:ben.wilson at digicert.com>; Ryan Sleevi<mailto:sleevi at google.com>
Cc: Dean Coclin<mailto:Dean_Coclin at symantec.com>; CABFPub<mailto:public at cabforum.org>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 146 - Convert Baseline Requirements to RFC 3647 Framework

Ben,

This ballot was scaled back to only include reformatting and not
incorporate the Network and Certificate System Security Requirements.
 I think it might make sense to target BR 2.0 to be be a RFC3647
formatted Certificate Policy that includes all BR 1.2 and security
requirements. Maybe the reformatted version is 1.3 or 1.8 (with 1.9
merging in the security reqs and 2.0 including corrections resulting
from the merge)?

Thanks,
Peter

On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 3:20 PM, Ben Wilson <ben.wilson at digicert.com> wrote:
> An updated version of the document – based on passage of Ballot 148 – is
> available here:
> https://cabforum.org/wp-content/uploads/CA-Browser-Forum-Baseline-Requirements-Ballot-146.pdf.
> Since Ballot 148 resulted in version 1.2.5 of the BRs, this ballot would be
> the next version, which I’m recommending we call version 2.0.0, since it
> would be in RFC3647 format.
>
>
>
> From: Dean Coclin [mailto:Dean_Coclin at symantec.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2015 2:25 PM
> To: Ben Wilson; CABFPub
> Subject: RE: [cabfpub] Ballot 146 - Convert Baseline Requirements to RFC
> 3647 Framework
>
>
>
> Reminder:  we are in the voting period now, which ends next Thursday.
>
>
>
> This ballot is just to change to the new framework. NOTHING ELSE IS BEING
> CHANGED AT THIS TIME.
>
>
>
> Dean
>
>
>
> From: public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On
> Behalf Of Ben Wilson
> Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2015 4:47 PM
> To: CABFPub
> Subject: [cabfpub] Ballot 146 - Convert Baseline Requirements to RFC 3647
> Framework
>
>
>
> Ballot 146 - Convert Baseline Requirements to RFC 3647 Framework
>
>
>
> The Certificate Policy Review Working Group was chartered by Ballot 128 to
> (i) consider existing and proposed standards, (ii) create a list of
> potential improvements based on the considered standards that improve the
> existing CAB Forum work product, (iii) evaluate the transition to a 3647
> format based on the amount [of work involved]. One deliverable of the CP
> Review WG was to propose a ballot to improve CA infrastructure based on
> existing standards and documents and recommend whether to finish the 3647
> conversion presented by Jeremy Rowley in January 2014.
>
>
>
> The CP Review WG has met and concluded that the best path forward for the
> Forum is to complete a conversion to the RFC 3647 for the Baseline
> Requirements with an initial step that merely moves existing content from
> the Baseline Requirements into the RFC 3647 format.
>
>
>
> Available at
> https://cabforum.org/wp-content/uploads/CAB-Forum-BR-1.2.5-Ballot146-with-comments.pdf
> is the proposed RFC-3647-formatted Baseline Requirements for the Issuance
> and Management of Publicly-Trusted Certificates.
>
>
>
> Ben Wilson of DigiCert made the following motion, Tim Hollebeek from
> Trustwave and Jody Cloutier from Microsoft have endorsed it.
>
>
>
> Motion Begins
>
>
>
> Be it resolved that the CA / Browser Forum adopts the attached CA/B Forum
> Baseline Requirements for the Issuance and Management of Publicly-Trusted
> Certificates, v.1.2.5, effective upon adoption.
>
>
>
> Motion Ends
>
>
>
> The review period for this ballot shall commence at 2200 UTC on Thursday 2
> April 2015 and will close at 2200 UTC on Thursday 9 April 2015. Unless the
> motion is withdrawn during the review period, the voting period will start
> immediately thereafter and will close at 2200 UTC on 16 April 2015.
>
>
>
> Votes must be cast by posting an on-list reply to this thread. A vote in
> favor of the ballot must indicate a clear ‘yes’ in the response. A vote
> against the ballot must indicate a clear ‘no’ in the response. A vote to
> abstain must indicate a clear ‘abstain’ in the response. Unclear responses
> will not be counted. The latest vote received from any representative of a
> voting member before the close of the voting period will be counted.
>
>
>
> Voting members are listed here: https://cabforum.org/members/. In order for
> the motion to be adopted, two thirds or more of the votes cast by members in
> the CA category and more than one half of the votes cast by members in the
> browser category must be in favor. Quorum is currently nine (9) members– at
> least nine members must participate in the ballot, either by voting in
> favor, voting against, or by abstaining for the vote to be valid.
>
>
>
> A copy of this Ballot 146 is posted here:
>
> https://cabforum.org/2015/04/02/ballot-146-convert-baseline-requirements-to-rfc-3647-framework/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Public mailing list
> Public at cabforum.org
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20150413/48d26557/attachment-0003.html>