[cabfpub] Small errors in the BRs

Rick Andrews Rick_Andrews at symantec.com
Tue Aug 25 22:10:08 UTC 2015

That seems like an onerous process just for errata. When Gerv first set up Bugzilla, I created a few bug reports on document errata that Ben Wilson picked up and addressed. It should all be documented in Bugzilla for full transparency. Ben posts the redlines from the previous version.


-----Original Message-----
From: public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of kirk_hall at trendmicro.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 2:34 PM
To: Gervase Markham; CABFPub
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Small errors in the BRs

We don't have any written rules in our Bylaws for (true) errata and/or correcting cross-references, etc.  We should add something in a future ballot.  I think the procedure could be a simple as saying in order to correct errata, erroneous cross references, etc. that so not make any substantive changes to the guidelines, the Chair may outline the proposed changes in an email to the public list.  If there are no objections from a Member over a [14?] day public review period, the changes may be made.  If any Member objects in the review period, the objection will be discussed in a teleconference or meeting, and if the objection still stands but other Members still want to make the change, they will propose a full ballot to make the change.  (We recently changed our Bylaws on membership to follow the same procedure -- after Forum review, the Chair ask if there are objections to admitting the new member; if none, the member is in; if an objection, have a ballot.)

Until we have such a rule in our Bylaws, I suggest we follow the same procedure anyway -- the Chair can gather up all identified errata now (and identify proposed changes), put out there for review asking for objections, and if none in the review period, incorporate the changes, etc.

-----Original Message-----
From: public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Gervase Markham
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 3:30 PM
Subject: [cabfpub] Small errors in the BRs

Hi everyone,

Kathleen has noticed a couple of errors in the BRs (1.3.0). I believe we have provisions for editorial discretion - is it OK for Ben or someone to fix them using that power? Details below.


" Subject Alternative Name Extension
Required/Optional: Required"

It's missing the line "Certificate Field: extensions:subjectAltName"


" Subject Distinguished Name Fields a. Certificate Field: subject:commonName (OID
Required/Optional: Deprecated (Discouraged, but not prohibited)
Contents: If present, this field MUST contain a single IP address or Fully‐Qualified Domain Name that is one of the values contained in the Certificate’s subjectAltName extension (see Section 9.2.1)."

The 9.2.1 should be

Public mailing list
Public at cabforum.org

<table class="TM_EMAIL_NOTICE"><tr><td><pre>
The information contained in this email and any attachments is confidential and may be subject to copyright or other intellectual property protection. 
If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to use or disclose this information, and we request that you notify us by reply mail or telephone and delete the original message from your mail system.
Public mailing list
Public at cabforum.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5749 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20150825/40631d10/attachment-0001.p7s>

More information about the Public mailing list