[cabfpub] Ballots 154 and 155 - Convert to RFC 3647 Framework and GitHub

Gervase Markham gerv at mozilla.org
Sun Nov 8 09:09:44 UTC 2015

On 05/11/15 03:07, kirk_hall at trendmicro.com wrote:
> I am perfectly satisfied if you and others want to use GitHub as the
> official canonical version for CABF documents for the next several
> months so we can all see how this will work.  But do you have to specify
> GitHub in your Ballot?  Why not take that out so we don’t ever have to
> vote to use another app instead?

So your view is that it's fine for e.g. the Chairperson to decide the
official canonical location for the CAB Forum document repository,
rather than it being decided by ballot?

If that's not what you are saying, I'm not sure what your proposal is.

> But here’s a specific question on how this is going to work.  On
> authentication, RFC 3647 puts most everything in to Section 3.2, and in
> the BRs we already have a Sec. 3.2.1 through 3.2.6 for DV and OV
> authentication.  How will you number (renumber) the EV Guidelines to an
> RFC 3647 format?  Will you start at Sec. 3.2.7?  But then you will never
> be able to add a Sec. 3.2.7 to the BRs, because it will be taken by the

Are you concerned about numbering in the documents when they are
separate, or the numbering in some non-canonical combined version of the

In the former case, there is no problem with two separate documents both
having a section 3.2.3, for example.

In the latter case, it's up to the merging script. You could either
combine all sections marked 3.2.3 into one larger section 3.2.3, or you
could label them 3.2.3 (a), 3.2.3 (b), and so on, or you could label
them 3.2.3 (BR), 3.2.3 (EV)... It's up to you, and it's outside the
scope of this ballot. The work this ballot enables merely makes it
technically possible to produce merged documents, it doesn't mandate it
or tell you how to organize it.


More information about the Public mailing list