[cabfpub] Ballot 191 - Clarify Place of Business Information

Sat May 20 00:30:46 UTC 2017

To be clear: We did vote for it ;)

What constitutes a 'comparison showing the set of changes'? We don't really
have a defined technical format, and we've continued to grow in the number
and ways in which they're shared (PDFs, word documents, rich-text markup
for e-mails, wiki forms)? Rich text e-mails are a really good example of a
'questionable' idea, since you could have the rich text message (which some
clients do not support) display things underline/strikethrough/colored, but
then also provide a 'plain text' version (which is what our maillist
archives for the public) that doesn't maintain that coloration.

On a more extreme basis, could a ballot simply say "See this link" and
refer to a GitHub pull request? A pastebin dump? Are those links themselves
comparisons, or are they links to comparison?

As far as process itself goes, I know it sounds like a silly semantic game,
because 'surely' no one would submit a ballot for which the comparison
could be made by 'deleting every word that ends in a vowel', but we're
effectively introducing 'yet another way' to conduct a ballot. My hope and
desire is that, regardless of bylaws, we'd at least pick some consistency
and stick to it consistently =) For example, it was not until Ben's
clarification, on May 18 - after several people had voted - that the nature
and means of understanding that comparison was pointed out. Perhaps it was
more obvious to our learned colleagues at Entrust, Izenpe, and Mozilla, but
of course, until that clarification was provided, it was entirely suspect
as to whether or not it was a legitimate ballot, and how to compare that
text against the current EVGs :)

On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 8:19 PM, Jeremy Rowley <jeremy.rowley at digicert.com>
wrote:

> Why wouldn’t the wiki version constitute a redlined version?
>
>
>
> *From:* Public [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] *On Behalf Of *Ryan
> Sleevi via Public
> *Sent:* Friday, May 19, 2017 6:53 AM
> *To:* CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>
> *Cc:* Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 191 - Clarify Place of Business
> Information
>
>
>
> Thanks Bruce for providing this.
>
>
>
> It's unclear to me, in light of the discussions around 198 - .onion
> domains - whether this constitutes a proper ballot, since a redline version
> was not provided.
>
>
>
> That is, whether the --( )-- (deletion) __ __ (addition) constitute
> redlines or not. Assuming we accept it as such (expedience, courtesy, and
> no one has raised objections to this ballot yet), then I can confirm that
> Bruce's "redline" version is for the most part consistent with the EVG
> 1.6.2 and 1.6.3
>
>
>
> I say "for the most part" because there's on the city and town line
> there's the text "EV Guidelines, v. 1.6.3 12", which is the result of a
> copy/paste issue from the source PDF (it's the footer of the PDF), and not
> part of the actual text :)
>
>
>
> Since we have the redline version (from the original ballot, I think we
> can safely conclude the 'wiki markup' is "sufficient" redline, versus say
> PDF or word), and a visual version (Bruce's) to make sure it's correct, and
> it's based on the current EVGs (1.6.2 as last published, 1.6.3 is pending
> IP review)...
>
>
>
> Google votes YES
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 11:59 AM, Bruce Morton via Public <
> public at cabforum.org> wrote:
>
> Here is a markup of BR section 9.2.7 for ballot 191.
>
>
>
> Thanks, Bruce.
>
>
>
> *From:* Public [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] *On Behalf Of *Ben
> Wilson via Public
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 18, 2017 11:18 AM
> *To:* CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>
> *Cc:* Ben Wilson <ben.wilson at digicert.com>
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL]Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 191 - Clarify Place of Business
> Information
>
>
>
> Just a clarification for everyone, the text below was copied out of the
> wiki with wiki markup language, so the following text is being deleted --(City,
> State, and country – Required; Street and postal code - Optional)—(the open
> and close parentheses with dashes indicates a deletion).
>
>
>
> *From:* Public [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org
> <public-bounces at cabforum.org>] *On Behalf Of *Jeremy Rowley via Public
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 11, 2017 10:51 AM
> *To:* CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>
> *Cc:* Jeremy Rowley <jeremy.rowley at digicert.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 191 - Clarify Place of Business
> Information
>
>
>
> Updated:
>
>
>
> Ballot 191 - Clarify Place of Business Information Field Inclusion
>
> The current EV Guidelines are not clear on what address information is
> required in a certificate. This ballot clarifies the requirements and
> harmonizes the EV Guidelines and Baseline Requirements.
>
> The following motion has been proposed by Bruce Morton of Entrust and
> endorsed by Jeremy Rowley of DigiCert and Robin Alden of Comodo:
>
> --Motion Begins--
>
> A. Modify Section 9.2.7 of the EV Guidelines as follows:
>
> *9.2.7. Subject Physical Address of Place of Business Field*
>
> Certificate fields:
>
> Number and street: subject:streetAddress (OID: 2.5.4.9)
>
> City or town: subject:localityName (OID: 2.5.4.7)
>
> State or province (where applicable): subject:stateOrProvinceName (OID:
> 2.5.4.8)
>
> Country: subject:countryName (OID: 2.5.4.6)
>
> Postal code: subject:postalCode (OID: 2.5.4.17)
>
> Required/Optional: --(City, State, and country – Required; Street and
> postal code - Optional)--__*As stated in Section 7.1.4.2.2 d, e, f, g and
> h of the Baseline Requirements__*
>
> Contents: This field MUST contain the address of the physical location of
> the Subject’s Place of Business.
>
> --Motion Ends--
>
> The procedure for approval of this Final Maintenance Guideline ballot is
> as follows (exact start and end times may be adjusted to comply with
> applicable Bylaws and IPR Agreement):
>
> BALLOT 191 Status: Final Maintenance Guideline
>
> Start time (22:00 UTC)
>
> End time (22:00 UTC)
>
> Discussion (7 to 14 days)
>
> 9 May 2017
>
> 16 May 2017
>
> Vote for approval (7 days)
>
> 16 May 2017
>
> 23 May 2017
>
> If vote approves ballot: Review Period (Chair to send Review Notice) (30
> days). If Exclusion Notice(s) filed, ballot approval is rescinded and PAG
> to be created. If no Exclusion Notices filed, ballot becomes effective at
> end of Review Period.
>
> Upon filing of Review Notice by Chair
>
> 30 days after filing of Review Notice by Chair
>
> From Bylaw 2.3: If the Draft Guideline Ballot is proposing a Final
> Maintenance Guideline, such ballot will include a redline or comparison
> showing the set of changes from the Final Guideline section(s) intended to
> become a Final Maintenance Guideline, and need not include a copy of the
> full set of guidelines. Such redline or comparison shall be made against
> the Final Guideline section(s) as they exist at the time a ballot is
> proposed, and need not take into consideration other ballots that may be
> proposed subsequently, except as provided in Bylaw Section 2.3(j).
>
> Votes must be cast by posting an on-list reply to this thread on the
> Public list. A vote in favor of the motion must indicate a clear 'yes' in
> the response. A vote against must indicate a clear 'no' in the response. A
> vote to abstain must indicate a clear 'abstain' in the response. Unclear
> responses will not be counted. The latest vote received from any
> representative of a voting member before the close of the voting period
> will be counted. Voting members are listed here: https://cabforum.org/
> members/
>
> In order for the motion to be adopted, two thirds or more of the votes
> cast by members in the CA category and greater than 50% of the votes cast
> by members in the browser category must be in favor. Quorum is shown on
> CA/Browser Forum wiki. Under Bylaw 2.2(g), at least the required quorum
> number must participate in the ballot for the ballot to be valid, either by
> voting in favor, voting against, or abstaining.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Public mailing list
> Public at cabforum.org
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20170519/1194ba51/attachment-0003.html>