[cabf_validation] Cert Profile spec: question about the outline/ToC

Ryan Sleevi sleevi at google.com
Mon Aug 2 15:54:21 UTC 2021

And for completeness: This is what the PDF produced looks like from the
canonical markdown:

[image: Screen Shot 2021-08-02 at 11.49.06 AM.png]

That said, I haven't really paid attention to the Word file, as I don't use
it, but could you confirm the process you're using to generate the table of
contents? It should be generated with four levels of depth, like above -
the Word default is 3 levels, so if you're manually doing the generation,
this may explain. It looks like there's a slight bug in Word that we don't
have a way to work around <https://github.com/jgm/pandoc/issues/458> related
to how it generates the TOC, but if you're manually replacing the ToC, that
may explain why you don't have a matching experience.

On Mon, Aug 2, 2021 at 11:48 AM Ryan Sleevi via Validation <
validation at cabforum.org> wrote:

> Hey Doug,
> Thanks for the suggestion!
> I think you may recall that we had at least two calls where we discussed
> this outline, early on, in order to gather feedback early on, so that it
> wouldn't require major restructuring. That's not to say no, but that this
> isn't exactly a light request.
> There's a clear problem with your proposal, which is that it relies on
> breaking from RFC 3647 format. Considering multiple root programs, and the
> BRs itself, require CAs to adhere to RFC 3647, that's a somewhat big
> divergence here, and I want to call attention to it.
> I'll certainly give it some thought, but I'm hoping as well you can better
> explain your concern: Is your primary concern simply the Table of Contents
> on the main PDF? I'm not sure I understand "avoid long numbered headings"
> in and of itself as a goal, especially since we have other places (and
> within the NCSSRs, but *especially* the EVGs), so it does seem you're
> proposing a more substantial requirement that is inconsistent with our
> existing work. That doesn't mean it's bad, but it seems we should try to
> aim to be self-consistent to a degree, shouldn't we?
> _______________________________________________
> Validation mailing list
> Validation at cabforum.org
> https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/validation
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/attachments/20210802/25399d5b/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Screen Shot 2021-08-02 at 11.49.06 AM.png
Type: image/png
Size: 283040 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/attachments/20210802/25399d5b/attachment-0001.png>

More information about the Validation mailing list