[Servercert-wg] VOTING BEGINS: Ballot SC41v2: Reformat the BRs, EVGs, and NCSSRs

Fri Feb 19 16:31:45 UTC 2021

TrustCor votes YES to Ballot SC41v2.

Regards,

Neil

On 17/02/2021 22:28, Ryan Sleevi via Servercert-wg wrote:
> Hearing no objections or concerns during the discussion period for 
> Ballot SC41v2: Reformat the BRs, EVGs, and NCSSRs , the purpose of 
> this mail is to signal the start of the VOTING PERIOD.
>
> Bylaws Note: Although this Ballot modifies how the documents 
> internally express the Guideline version number, it does not 
> explicitly change the value of the Guideline version number in a 
> manner that would constitute an "update" pursuant to CA/Browser Forum 
> Bylaws 2.3, Section 2.4 (8). As such, the Chair or Vice-Chair are 
> permitted to make changes permitted by that Section as necessary.
>
> Purpose of Ballot:
>
> This ballot attempts to align the Baseline Requirements (BRs), EV 
> Guidelines (EVGs), and the Network and Certificate System Security 
> Requirements (NCSSRs) to a common format, to allow for the automatic 
> generation of final documents without requiring third-party tooling 
> being installed locally.
>
> It is a continuation of the work started in SC26 [1], and is within 
> the work started originally by Ballots 154 and 155 [2]. If this ballot 
> succeeds, the Server Certificate Working Group will use the 
> version-controlled documents in GitHub as the authoritative source of 
> requirements, avoiding issues that resulted from exchanging various 
> versions of Microsoft Office files via e-mail or the Wiki.
>
> The following changes are made, and are explicitly called out, beyond 
> changes to font/styling
>
>   * Baseline Requirements
>       o Formatting issues in Sections 3.2.2.4.18, 3.2.2.4.19, 4.10.1,
>         6.1.6, Appendix B are resolved (see [3] [4] [5])
>       o Section 9.6.1 referenced a non-existent Section 11.2, which
>         was a bug introduced in BRs v1.3.0. This is fixed to the
>         correct section, which is 7.1.4.2.2. [6]
>       o Section 3.2.2.4.7 referenced Section 3.3.1, rather than the
>         intended Section 4.2.1 [7]
>       o The BRs consistently incorrectly refer to Section 8.1 for
>         audit schemes, when the correct reference in Section 8.4 [8]
>   * Extended Validation Guidelines
>       o The EVGs are aligned to common language when referencing other
>         sections, removing variations like “this Section X”, “the
>         Section X of these Guidelines”, “Section X herein”, etc.
>         Ambiguity is avoided by ensuring these references will also be
>         internal document links that are structurally enforced.
>   * Network and Certificate System Security
>       o The structure is aligned to the BRs and EVGs, by listing Scope
>         and Applicability followed by Document History and Definitions.
>       o Section 2, Items (g), (k), and (o) and Section 4, Item (c) and
>         (f), have the sub-items renumbered to Arabic numerals (1, 2,
>         3, 4) instead of Roman numerals (i, ii, iii, iv), for
>         consistency and to avoid ambiguity with I/(i)/i.
>
> This ballot attaches derived versions of these documents in PDF and 
> Microsoft Office, as produced by these changes. However, these 
> documents are INFORMATIVE only, as per the Ballot text, and are 
> provided to assist Members in review. For the avoidance of doubt, the 
> attached documents do not constitute Ballot Versions, as defined 
> within the CA/Browser Forum Bylaws, Section 2.4(1).
>
> If there are any inconsistencies, the balloted text redline shall 
> decide the definitive version. However, Members are encouraged to 
> raise any such presentation issues, to ensure they can be reasonably 
> addressed as part of this Ballot.
>
> The following motion has been proposed by Ryan Sleevi of Google and 
> endorsed by Ben Wilson of Mozilla and Dimitris Zacharopoulos of HARICA.
>
> Version 2 of this Ballot introduces language to address potential 
> conflicts with Ballot SC39v3, due to modifying the same section of the 
> NCSSRs, as well as addresses one small Markdown lint pointed out by 
> Aaron Gable of ISRG/Let's Encrypt with respect to fenced code blocks.
>
> The comparison between v1 and v2 of this ballot is available at [9]
>
> [1] 
> https://cabforum.org/2020/03/30/ballot-sc26v2-pandoc-friendly-markdown-formatting-changes/ 
> <https://cabforum.org/2020/03/30/ballot-sc26v2-pandoc-friendly-markdown-formatting-changes/>
> [2] 
> https://cabforum.org/2015/11/18/ballots-154-and-155-convert-to-rfc-3647-framework-and-github/ 
> <https://cabforum.org/2015/11/18/ballots-154-and-155-convert-to-rfc-3647-framework-and-github/>
> [3] https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/issues/230 
> <https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/issues/230>
> [4] https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/issues/231 
> <https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/issues/231>
> [5] https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/issues/233 
> <https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/issues/233>
> [6] https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/issues/237 
> <https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/issues/237>
> [7] https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/issues/236 
> <https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/issues/236>
> [8] https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/issues/216 
> <https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/issues/216>
> [9] 
> https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/compare/a8a6605a1d37ec9120ee1cc30b725bafa4dd5651..8f0a3b5038ff2911c50741ded594d403ec868803 
> <https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/compare/a8a6605a1d37ec9120ee1cc30b725bafa4dd5651..8f0a3b5038ff2911c50741ded594d403ec868803>
>
> – MOTION BEGINS –
>
> This ballot modifies the “Baseline Requirements for the Issuance and 
> Management of Publicly-Trusted Certificates” (“Baseline 
> Requirements”), based on Version 1.7.3:
>
> MODIFY the Baseline Requirements as defined in the following redline 
> to BR.md:
>
> https://github.com/cabforum/documents/compare/2b7720f7821764f0ea9d0d583ec5c61896a3f4cd..8f0a3b5038ff2911c50741ded594d403ec868803 
> <https://github.com/cabforum/documents/compare/2b7720f7821764f0ea9d0d583ec5c61896a3f4cd..8f0a3b5038ff2911c50741ded594d403ec868803>
>
> This ballot modifies the “Guidelines for the Issuance and Management 
> of Extended Validation Certificates” (“EV Guidelines”) as follows, 
> based on Version 1.7.4:
>
> MODIFY the EV Guidelines as defined in the following redline to EVG.md:
>
> https://github.com/cabforum/documents/compare/2b7720f7821764f0ea9d0d583ec5c61896a3f4cd..8f0a3b5038ff2911c50741ded594d403ec868803 
> <https://github.com/cabforum/documents/compare/2b7720f7821764f0ea9d0d583ec5c61896a3f4cd..8f0a3b5038ff2911c50741ded594d403ec868803>
>
> This ballot modifies the “Network and Certificate System Security 
> Requirements” (“Network Security Controls”) as follows, based on 
> Version 1.5
>
> IF Ballot SC39v3 FAILS to be adopted by the Server Certificate 
> Chartered Working Group:
>
>   * MODIFY the Network Security Controls as defined in the following
>     redline to NSR.md:
>     https://github.com/cabforum/documents/compare/2b7720f7821764f0ea9d0d583ec5c61896a3f4cd..a8a6605a1d37ec9120ee1cc30b725bafa4dd5651
>     <https://github.com/cabforum/documents/compare/2b7720f7821764f0ea9d0d583ec5c61896a3f4cd..a8a6605a1d37ec9120ee1cc30b725bafa4dd5651>
>
> IF Ballot SC39v3 SUCCEEDS and is adopted by the Server Certificate 
> Chartered Working Group
>
>   * MODIFY the Network Security Controls as defined in the following
>     redline to NSR.md:
>     https://github.com/cabforum/documents/compare/2b7720f7821764f0ea9d0d583ec5c61896a3f4cd..8f0a3b5038ff2911c50741ded594d403ec868803
>     <https://github.com/cabforum/documents/compare/2b7720f7821764f0ea9d0d583ec5c61896a3f4cd..8f0a3b5038ff2911c50741ded594d403ec868803>
>
> On the successful adoption of this Ballot, the Forum shall recognize 
> the CA/Browser Forum Server Certificate Chartered Working Group Git 
> repository, as the authoritative and canonical source for the Baseline 
> Requirements, EV Guidelines, and Network Security Controls. 
> Alternative presentation formats may be used and provided, such as 
> PDF/A, Office Open XML, or HTML, but in the event of any inconsistency 
> in presentation, the documents as committed to the official Git 
> repository shall be authoritative.
>
> At the time of this ballot, the Git repository may be browsed at 
> https://github.com/cabforum/servercert 
> <https://github.com/cabforum/servercert> and cloned via 
> https://github.com/cabforum/servercert.git 
> <https://github.com/cabforum/servercert.git>
>
> – MOTION ENDS –
>
> This ballot proposes three Final Maintenance Guidelines.
>
> The procedure for approval of this ballot is as follows:
>
> Discussion (7+ days)
>
> Start Time: 2021-02-08 16:00:00 UTC
> End Time: 2021-02-17 22:30:00 UTC
>
> Vote for approval (7 days)
>
> Start Time: 2021-02-17 22:30:00 UTC
> End Time: 2021-02-24 22:30:00 UTC
>
> _______________________________________________
> Servercert-wg mailing list
> Servercert-wg at cabforum.org
> https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/servercert-wg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/servercert-wg/attachments/20210219/f23af322/attachment.html>