[cabfpub] Ballot 190 - Recording BR Version Number

[Ryan Sleevi]

Kirk,

Given that the Forum already publishes its Ballots - and keeps track
of changes within the documents - and given CAs are already required
to annually review their CP/CPS (in addition to following the current
published version), do you believe Gerv's response is not a perfectly
reasonable and easy to accomplish approach?

It would be useful to understand, given all the existing tools and
practices, what's missing.

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 8:19 PM, Kirk Hall via Public
<public at cabforum.org> wrote:
> Wayne, I think your idea has merit in this special situation – and it’s
> something we can probably accomplish without a ballot.
>
>
>
> Statute books commonly have notations at the end of each statute showing all
> the times the statute was amended – often it will show year and public law
> number (in “reverse” order with the most recent first) so users can go back
> and find each law that affected a current statute.
>
>
>
> When we compile the BRs after Ballot 190 passes, we can put the BR version
> number where each of the 10 methods was LAST amended by the Forum.  That
> way, a CA who looks at the most recent BR compilation will know which
> methods have been recently amended, and which have not.  No one has to use
> this information, but it would be easy to include in a footnote at the end
> of BR 3.2.2.4, and update when there is any further change.
>
>
>
> Ben and I will discuss after Ballot 190 has passed.
>
>
>
> From: Public [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Wayne Thayer
> via Public
> Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2017 6:32 PM
> To: public at cabforum.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL][cabfpub] Ballot 190 - Recording BR Version Number
>
>
>
> Ballot 190 Includes the following statement in 3.2.2.4:
>
>
>
> The CA SHALL maintain a record of which domain validation method, including
> relevant BR version number, they used to validate every domain.
>
>
>
> While I understand the logic behind this, I’m concerned about the “relevant
> BR version number”. This could be interpreted in a number of imprecise ways.
> For instance, does ballot 202 require CAs to update their system to record
> compliance with changes to the definitions in some of the methods?
>
>
>
> I suggest that we add version numbers to each of the 10 validation methods
> listed in the BRs and require CAs to record compliance with a specific
> version of the validation method for each domain they validate. This allows
> ballot authors to explicitly increment the version number of a given method
> when a material change is made, and provides clear guidance to CAs on what
> version number to record.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Wayne
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Public mailing list
> Public at cabforum.org
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
>