[cabfpub] RFC 3647 Compliance
doug.beattie at globalsign.com
Fri Apr 28 04:58:04 MST 2017
Would CAs be able to add additional subsections to their CP and CPS under your proposal? If so, GlobalSign is OK with the proposed ballot and timeline.
From: Public [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Ryan Sleevi via Public
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 10:12 PM
To: Peter Bowen <pzb at amzn.com>
Cc: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com>; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] RFC 3647 Compliance
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 9:35 PM, Peter Bowen <pzb at amzn.com<mailto:pzb at amzn.com>> wrote:
On Apr 25, 2017, at 5:00 PM, Ryan Sleevi via Public <public at cabforum.org<mailto:public at cabforum.org>> wrote:
Like we talked about at the recent F2F in Raleigh, I'd love to see a world where we can slowly move to consistent CP/CPSes. This is especially important for efforts like the CCADB with Microsoft's help, or the BR self-assessments that Mozilla's requesting.
You can see the initial proposed edits at https://github.com/sleevi/cabforum-docs/pull/3/files , along with explanations for the motivations for these.
Am I correct that you are using “MUST be structured in accordance with RFC 3647” as short hand for “MUST include all the section headings specified in the outline in RFC 3647 section 6”? Should it say that sections without subordinate headings and without content need to specify “No stipulation” or is that too specific?
That's a great point. Certainly, the intent is that all the section headings are present, in the same order and with the prescribed content/topic of discussion.
I'd love to hear from others, but I actually think "No stipulation" is a useful and valuable addition.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Public