[cabfpub] [Ext] Ballot XXX: Update Discussion Period

Tim Hollebeek tim.hollebeek at digicert.com
Fri Dec 8 18:24:59 UTC 2017

ANSI/ISO distinguishes editorial and technical changes as well.  I agree the
separation isn't always obvious, but it is an important enough distinction
that various groups try to handle it in various ways.


-----Original Message-----
From: Public [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Paul Hoffman
via Public
Sent: Friday, December 8, 2017 10:44 AM
To: Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>
Cc: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] [Ext] Ballot XXX: Update Discussion Period

On Dec 8, 2017, at 7:38 AM, Kirk Hall via Public <public at cabforum.org>
> In the past, we have let ballot authors correct typos - such as
"certificaet" to "certificate".  Would that no longer be allowed (meaning,
would that type of editing to a ballot require the restart of a new seven
day discussion period)?

In the IETF, when similar situations happen, there is often disagreement
about whether this one little change is editorial or has technical effects.
However, that disagreement often comes up a few days after the change was
made, making reverting difficult if other changes have been made
subsequently. The draft numbering scheme in the IETF looks arcane and nerdy,
but it has made it easier to see when an editorial change is actually a
technical change and cleanly revert it. I don't know if that would work in
the CABForum.

--Paul Hoffman
Public mailing list
Public at cabforum.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4940 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20171208/f9d76cc6/attachment-0003.p7s>

More information about the Public mailing list