[cabfpub] Ballot 191 - Clarify Place of Business Information

Sat May 20 01:08:05 UTC 2017

I agree that we don’t have a format. I was surprised that there was doubt on whether the wiki format was sufficient.  I used the wiki format specifically to avoid a rich text format. 

From: Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi at google.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 19, 2017 6:31 PM
To: Jeremy Rowley <jeremy.rowley at digicert.com>
Cc: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 191 - Clarify Place of Business Information

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 <mailto:jeremy.rowley at digicert.com> > wrote:

Why wouldn’t the wiki version constitute a redlined version?

From: Public [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org <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 <mailto:public at cabforum.org> >
Cc: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <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 <mailto:public at cabforum.org> >
Cc: Ben Wilson <ben.wilson at digicert.com <mailto: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] 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 <mailto:public at cabforum.org> >
Cc: Jeremy Rowley <jeremy.rowley at digicert.com <mailto: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/> 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 <mailto: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/20170520/b200c2c9/attachment-0003.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4964 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20170520/b200c2c9/attachment-0001.p7s>