[Servercert-wg] SC-065: Convert EVGs into RFC 3647 format pre-ballot

Tim Hollebeek tim.hollebeek at digicert.com
Tue Aug 29 14:59:13 UTC 2023

Yes, exactly.  I would like to see a list that shows that EVG-classic section 1.4 is now in EVG-3647 section 4.1.  Then I can look at where the new text landed, see how the conversion was handled, we can all verify that nothing was lost or left out, etc.

Without that, anyone attempting to review the document is forced to recreate the mapping just to figure out where everything went and that nothing was missed or put in the wrong place.  Redlines are not sufficient when large amounts of text are moving around to different places.

I’m saying this because from my spot-checking, the conversion appears to be pretty good, and I’d like to be able to do a final verification that it’s mostly correct so I can endorse.


From: Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) <dzacharo at harica.gr>
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2023 7:58 AM
To: Inigo Barreira <Inigo.Barreira at sectigo.com>; CA/B Forum Server Certificate WG Public Discussion List <servercert-wg at cabforum.org>; Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com>
Subject: Re: [Servercert-wg] SC-065: Convert EVGs into RFC 3647 format pre-ballot

Hi Inigo,

You can take some guidance from previous successful efforts to convert existing documents into RFC 3647 format. The latest attempt was in the Code Signing BRs conversion in May 2022. Check out the mapping document and the comments in the ballot discussion period<https://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/cscwg-public/2022-May/000795.html>.

For each existing section/paragraph, it would be nice to have a comment describing where that existing language will land in the converted document (destination). This will allow all existing text to be accounted for.

During this process, you might encounter duplicate or redundant text which needs to be flagged accordingly. You might also get into some uncertainty as to which RFC3647 section is a best fit for existing text that might require additional discussion.

I hope this helps.


On 29/8/2023 12:42 μ.μ., Inigo Barreira via Servercert-wg wrote:
Hi Tim,

See attached redlined and current versions. I just used what Martijn suggested yesterday but let me know if this is what you were looking for.


De: Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com><mailto:tim.hollebeek at digicert.com>
Enviado el: lunes, 28 de agosto de 2023 19:49
Para: Inigo Barreira <Inigo.Barreira at sectigo.com><mailto:Inigo.Barreira at sectigo.com>; CA/B Forum Server Certificate WG Public Discussion List <servercert-wg at cabforum.org><mailto:servercert-wg at cabforum.org>
Asunto: RE: SC-065: Convert EVGs into RFC 3647 format pre-ballot

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Thanks for doing this Inigo … I know re-organizations like this are a lot of work and fall very much in the category of “important but not fun”.  So thanks for taking an initial stab at this.

Is there a mapping that shows where all the original text ended up?  I think that’s going to be essential for people to be able to review this.  I did some spot checking, and your conversion looks pretty good, but I wasn’t able to do a more detailed review without a mapping.


From: Servercert-wg <servercert-wg-bounces at cabforum.org<mailto:servercert-wg-bounces at cabforum.org>> On Behalf Of Inigo Barreira via Servercert-wg
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2023 5:20 AM
To: CA/B Forum Server Certificate WG Public Discussion List <servercert-wg at cabforum.org<mailto:servercert-wg at cabforum.org>>
Subject: [Servercert-wg] SC-065: Convert EVGs into RFC 3647 format pre-ballot

The current Extended Validation Guidelines (EVGs) are written in a non-standardized format. For many years it has been discussed to convert this document into the RFC 3647 format and follow the standardized model for this type of documents.

Given that this has been known for several years, I have prepared the following ballot text, which converts the EVGs into the RFC 3647 format:
EVGs based on RFC3647 by barrini · Pull Request #440 · cabforum/servercert (github.com)<https://url.avanan.click/v2/___https:/github.com/cabforum/servercert/pull/440___.YXAzOmRpZ2ljZXJ0OmE6bzoyOGIxNWVhZGVmZDlkZTM0NjQzZTA3YTlmYTA2MzM5YTo2OmExZWM6NGZmMGEzM2U0ZWZjOTU4MTM1NWRkNjU3ZDE5YjU3Y2YxNzg1NWU0ZTVjYzkzY2NjM2M0MWU5MzEyYzJmZTQ0NzpoOkY>

I am currently seeking two endorsers as well as any feedback on the ballot content itself (wording, effective dates, etc.).



Servercert-wg mailing list

Servercert-wg at cabforum.org<mailto:Servercert-wg at cabforum.org>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/servercert-wg/attachments/20230829/7ac5cf79/attachment.html>

More information about the Servercert-wg mailing list