[Servercert-wg] Document Versioning

Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) dzacharo at harica.gr
Tue Aug 20 12:38:56 MST 2019

On 20/8/2019 10:04 μ.μ., Ryan Sleevi wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 2:59 PM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) 
> <dzacharo at harica.gr <mailto:dzacharo at harica.gr>> wrote:
>     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 :-)
> You believe Ballot SC22 messes up the versioning of the Guidelines? 
> Can you please define what "messes up" means in the context of the 
> proposed version number?

Sure. It arbitrarily changes an existing pattern. Both the BRs and the 
EV Guidelines have a certain pattern which is being followed. I would 
expect that the next BRs have version 1.6.6 and the next EV Guidelines 
have 1.7.1. Instead, the ballot, as proposed in the red-line, moves all 
versions to "1.8". I think this might create confusion to the consumers 
of the Guidelines, wondering where the "other versions" went.

The risk I am trying to avoid is a possible future ballot (again, fully 
compatible with our Bylaws) that proposes -for example- version "100". I 
believe ballot SC22, as written, will set a bad precedent setting the 
version of the Guideline, and I would like to avoid that if possible.

> Again, we're in agreement that the Forum Bylaws can be amended to 
> allow flexibility in areas that the Chartered Working Group 
> designates. That work has not been done, however, and is not permitted 
> by our Bylaws today, so it's unclear if you're suggesting that you 
> believe it better that we disregard our Bylaws until "someone" 
> (unclear who) proposes changes to the Bylaws. With Ballot SC22, I am 
> trying to follow our Bylaws, as written, unless and until someone who 
> feels strongly against that - e.g. because they believe it might mess 
> up the versioning (despite our Bylaws including provisions to prevent 
> that) proposes changes our Bylaws.

The Bylaws are silent about the versions of Guidelines so I am not 
certain about which provisions you are referring to. I assume you mean 
the provisions for parallel ballots but that doesn't prevent a proposer 
to pick any number for a Guideline.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/servercert-wg/attachments/20190820/a5acee4b/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Servercert-wg mailing list