[Servercert-wg] Voting Begins: Ballot SC24 V2: Fall Cleanup

[Adriano Santoni]

Actalis votes 'yes'.

> *From:*Servercert-wg [mailto:servercert-wg-bounces at cabforum.org] *On 
> Behalf Of *Wayne Thayer via Servercert-wg
> *Sent:* 5 Kasım 2019 Salı 08:01
> *To:* CA/B Forum Server Certificate WG Public Discussion List 
> <servercert-wg at cabforum.org>
> *Subject:* [Servercert-wg] Voting Begins: Ballot SC24 V2: Fall Cleanup
>
> Ballot SC24: Fall Cleanup v2
>
> Purpose of Ballot:
>
> This ballot proposes to correct a number of minor errata that have 
> been discovered in the BRs and EVGLs. The specific list of changes and 
> motivations is as follows:
>
> To the BRs:
>
> ·Remove overall ‘1 July 2012’ effective date for the BRs
>
> ·Correct the authorized port descriptive label (http -> https)
>
> ·Correct a few typos (contract -> contact, assigns -> assignees)
>
> ·Clarify the Request Token should be documented in the CP/CPS (or a 
> document referenced from the CP/CPS)
>
> ·Move the construction examples of a Request Token to the definition 
> of a Request Token
>
> ·Remove the definition of Test Certificate, as it is no longer used in 
> the BRs
>
> ·Correct some of our acronyms
>
> ·Remove effective dates that are in the past
>
> ·Remove validation methods that are no longer permitted
>
> oNote: This also involves typographical changes to section 3.2.2.4; 
> the sections were inconsistent in their use of boiler plate, and so 
> this simply aligned the formatting and line spacing, since this ballot 
> is for changes that are non-normative in impact
>
> ·Correct some unnecessarily gendered language to be gender-neutral
>
> ·Clarify that the usable OIDs in a certificatePolicies are what the CA 
> documents, and not simply restricted to a CA's own OID arc.
>
> oThis is to make it clear that it's fine to use the CABF-defined OIDs 
> for DV/OV/IV/EV
>
> ·Add the OID for organizationalUnitName, matching the rest of the 
> Subscriber DN documentation
>
> ·Clean up the algorithm requirements
>
> oSection 6.1.5 is rewritten to reflect what is permitted. This is 
> especially important to clarify the requirements are about when it's 
> issued, and not simply the validity period expressed in the certificate.
>
> oSection 7.1.3 is partially rewritten. The MUST NOT is still kept, 
> even though Section 6.1.5 clearly omits it, in order to avoid any 
> ambiguity.
>
> oIt also removes the now-expired grandfathering for OCSP responders.
>
> ·Referring to “RFC5280” vs “RFC 5280”
>
> To the EVGs:
>
> ·Unify the references to BRs to consistently say Baseline Requirements
>
> The following motion has been proposed by Wayne Thayer of Mozilla and 
> endorsed by Ryan Sleevi of Google and Jacob Hoffman-Andrews of Let’s 
> Encrypt.
>
> -- MOTION BEGINS --
>
> This ballot modifies the “Baseline Requirements for the Issuance and 
> Management of Publicly-Trusted Certificates” as defined in the 
> following redline, based on Version 1.6.6:
>
> *https://github.com/cabforum/documents/compare/master@%7B10-25-19%7D...sleevi:2019-07-Cleanups@%7B10-25-19%7D*
>
> This ballot modifies the “Guidelines for the Issuance and Management 
> of Extended Validation Certificates” as defined in the following 
> redline, based on Version 1.7.0:
>
> *https://github.com/cabforum/documents/compare/master@%7B10-25-19%7D...sleevi:2019-07-Cleanups@%7B10-25-19%7D*
>
> -- MOTION ENDS --
>
> This ballot proposes Final Maintenance Guidelines.
>
> The procedure for approval of this ballot is as follows:
>
> Discussion (7+ days)
>
> Start Time: 21-October 2019 18:00 UTC
>
> End Time: 05-November 2019 05:00 UTC
>
> Vote for approval (7 days)
>
> Start Time: 05-November 2019 05:00 UTC
>
> End Time: 12-November 2019 05:00 UTC
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Servercert-wg mailing list
> Servercert-wg at cabforum.org
> http://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/servercert-wg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/servercert-wg/attachments/20191105/41841460/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4105 bytes
Desc: Firma crittografica S/MIME
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/servercert-wg/attachments/20191105/41841460/attachment-0001.p7s>