[Servercert-wg] Document Versioning

Tim Hollebeek tim.hollebeek at digicert.com
Tue Aug 20 12:32:23 MST 2019

I don’t think ballot authors should be handle versioning of documents.  Previously, they have not.


I think any change to this procedure needs to be discussed with the membership at large and not unilaterally made by individual ballot authors.




From: Servercert-wg <servercert-wg-bounces at cabforum.org> On Behalf Of Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) via Servercert-wg
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 3:00 PM
To: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com>
Cc: CA/B Forum Server Certificate WG Public Discussion List <servercert-wg at cabforum.org>
Subject: Re: [Servercert-wg] Document Versioning



On 20/8/2019 9:08 μ.μ., Ryan Sleevi wrote:



On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 1:58 PM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) <dzacharo at harica.gr <mailto:dzacharo at harica.gr> > wrote:



As you already said, it's best to disconnect the discussion about a ballot related to shortening the lifetime of certificates and other administrative issues like the versioning scheme.


Just to be clear: You're objecting to the Ballot, which complies with the Bylaws, because you don't like that it tries to avoid a long-standing issue in the Forum?

Nope, I object because it creates the risk of messing up the versioning of the Guidelines if a proposer picks up any number they like :-)

I'd be curious to hear how others feel about this.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/servercert-wg/attachments/20190820/67e94383/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4940 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/servercert-wg/attachments/20190820/67e94383/attachment.p7s>

More information about the Servercert-wg mailing list