[cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: Ballot 190 - Recording BR Version Number

[Gervase Markham]

On 21/07/17 16:02, Kirk Hall via Public wrote:
>> The two responses (Gerv's and mine) are not in conflict, and there is no harm in including the extra information in the BRs.  I'm a big believer in helping people avoid mistakes when it's easy to do.

I don't believe that it's good for there to be two possible ways of
recording the relevant information. Either it should be mandated to
record the BR version number and method section number, or there should
be some other versioning mechanism - but not both.

I don't see the objection to BR version number and section number. If a
new version of the BRs is published which makes no changes to domain
validation methods (a common occurrence), then clearly:

BR 1.7.1/Section 3.2.2.4.5
is totally equivalent to
BR 1.7.2/Section 3.2.2.4.5

(because there are no changes to section 3.2.2.4.5) and so it doesn't
matter which of the two identifiers the CA records. The CA can continue
to record compliance with BR 1.7.1 as long as there are no material
changes in any future versions of the BRs which affect method 3.2.2.4.5.

Gerv