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

Tue Feb 23 05:35:13 UTC 2021

Certum votes YES on ballot SC41v2.

W dniu 17.02.2021 o 23:28, Ryan Sleevi via Servercert-wg pisze:
> 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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3765 bytes
Desc: Kryptograficzna sygnatura S/MIME
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/servercert-wg/attachments/20210223/59778993/attachment.p7s>