[cabfpub] Merge EV Guidelines into Baseline Requirements CP?

Tim Hollebeek THollebeek at trustwave.com
Mon Aug 31 14:50:33 UTC 2015

I tend to agree with this.  I'd prefer a separate document, even if much of it is "Section X: As in the baseline requirements".


From: public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Morton
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2015 10:17 AM
To: Ben Wilson; CABFPub
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Merge EV Guidelines into Baseline Requirements CP?


I'm thinking that this will start to make it hard to understand what is EV and what is not. It might also be hard for the auditing community to mage their EV audit criteria.

Currently, we can align Baseline Requirements with a Baseline Requirements audit criteria; we can also do the same for EV. If we merge the two together can we still separate them for CAs which do not issue EV certificates?


From: public-bounces at cabforum.org<mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org> [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Ben Wilson
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2015 9:58 AM
To: CABFPub <public at cabforum.org<mailto:public at cabforum.org>>
Subject: [cabfpub] Merge EV Guidelines into Baseline Requirements CP?

As I've looked at what is ahead of us (in the Policy Review Working Group), I have concluded that I'd prefer to put the EV Guidelines into the Baseline Requirements CP.  The EV Guidelines would lose their identity as a separate document, but if we merge the two, we can avoid a lot of back and forth between two documents because everything would be in one document.  Other CPs have taken this approach of having multiple policies in the same CP document.  Not sure what other people think, but I thought I'd mention this idea here, in case it helps guide the WG as we review the EVG document in the upcoming weeks.  (I did send out a rough draft of an RFC-3647-formatted EV Guidelines to the Policy Review Working Group to get us started.)  If people are amenable to merging the documents, then that might save us some work in the long run.  Otherwise, we can move forward with editing of the RFC-3647 formatted version of the EV Guidelines as a separate document, which is fine, too.


This transmission may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the information contained herein (including any reliance thereon) is strictly prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please immediately contact the sender and destroy the material in its entirety, whether in electronic or hard copy format.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20150831/ba5393d0/attachment-0003.html>

More information about the Public mailing list