[cabfpub] Baseline Requirements "Certificate Policy" for the Issuance and Management of Publicly-Trusted Certificates

[Ryan Sleevi]

As it stands,
http://www.webtrust.org/principles-and-criteria/docs/item83987.pdf and
http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_en/319400_319499/31941102/02.01.01_60/en_31941102v020101p.pdf
both note

"Baseline Requirements for the Issuance and Management of Publicly-Trusted
Certificates"

That is, the pre-1.3.0 language, even though they're based on and
incorporate post-1.3.0 versions.

https://cabforum.org/2015/04/16/ballot-146-convert-baseline-requirements-to-rfc-3647-framework/
as text notes "Be it resolved that the CA / Browser Forum adopts the
attached CA/B Forum Baseline Requirements for the Issuance and Management
of Publicly-Trusted Certificates, v.1.3.0, effective upon adoption."

On the basis of this data, and in the lack of evidence to the contrary, it
certainly would appear that changing the title of the document to reflect
its historic, pre-1.3.0 naming, has _less_ impact both to the BRs and
consumers than it does to suggest changing Section 2.2.

Of course, if others are aware of evidence to the contrary, this would be
useful to provide. But this is why I was highlighting that whether or not
external documents were updated to refer to the 'new' language (in which
case, changing 2.2 is the path of least resistance) or 'old' language (as,
it turns out, they are), can affect the cost evaluation of the different
proposals.

Hopefully that's at least an objective reason to "change the title back to
what it was" :)


On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 9:39 AM, Gervase Markham <gerv at mozilla.org> wrote:

> On 21/06/17 15:36, Rich Smith wrote:
> > If I’m not mistaken, Gerv is saying, rather than update a bunch of text
> > in other places, how about changing the name back to /Baseline
> > Requirements for the Issuance and Management of Publicly-Trusted
> > Certificates/.
> >
> > Gerv, if that is correct, I second the motion.
>
> That was my suggestion. 2 caveats, though: Ryan pointed out offlist that
> the name may be referenced elsewhere, and so it might be more work to
> change to something new than to standardize on what the cover page
> currently says. And also, presumably we added the words "Certificate
> Policy" to the name for a reason; we shouldn't remove them without
> knowing what that reason was.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Chesterton%27s_fence
>
> Gerv
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20170621/b1dfd6ff/attachment-0003.html>