[cabf_validation] [EXTERNAL]Re: Ballot Proposal: Validation Method in certificatePolicies

[Wayne Thayer]

On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 9:40 AM Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com> wrote:

> Just checking if I understand:
>
> Are you suggesting folding the document into a single section (that is,
> combining 3.2.2.4 and 3.2.2.5)?
>
>
Not necessarily, although that could work. I'm asking how you think this
should be implemented.
>

> Could you explain what the concerns would be for the alternative solution,
> which is just, within each section, e.g. 3.2.2.4.1
>
> This ID of this validation method is 1.
>
> >
That is what I'm suggesting. Moreover, I want to get some general sense of
how to implement this before drafting the language.
>

> That is, I'd like to try to understand a bit more the desire for a need
> for a separate mapping table, and how the existence or absence of alignment
> between the document and the identifiers helps or hinders the use cases you
> envisage for this.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/attachments/20180815/a7f80ba2/attachment.html>