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

[Ryan Sleevi]

Also, I'm still not sure I follow you on what you mean by the numbering
bug. Could you try to rephrase what you see as the numbering issue (re:
Common CA fields & Common Certificate Fields)?

On Mon, Aug 2, 2021 at 1:29 PM Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com> wrote:

> Sorry, we (infrastructure) still haven't wired up automation to make this
> even more discoverable for folks not using GitHub daily :)
>
> On https://github.com/sleevi/cabforum-docs/pull/36 , you can click the
> "Checks" tab ( https://github.com/sleevi/cabforum-docs/pull/36/checks )
> to see the actions, and then click either of the "Build Guidelines Actions"
> runs to download the artifacts (at the bottom of the page)
>
> You can also click the green checkmark next to any commit in a branch
> (e.g. on https://github.com/sleevi/cabforum-docs/tree/profiles or
> https://github.com/sleevi/cabforum-docs/commits/profiles ) to access the
> artifacts for that commit (or batch of commits).
>
> That will have the generated word and PDF files. The word file, due to the
> Word bug/quirk I mentioned ( https://github.com/jgm/pandoc/issues/458 )
> requires you click the refresh button on the ToC to regenerate it once you
> open, but it should generate the right ToC.
>
> On Mon, Aug 2, 2021 at 12:48 PM Doug Beattie <doug.beattie at globalsign.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I viewed the file in GitHub and copied into word to generate the ToC, but
>> for the life if me could not find the link to the PDF, so I’ll poke around
>> a bit more.
>>
>>
>>
>> Now that has one more level than the current BRs, those headings are
>> present and will make (my) navigation to the applicable section much
>> easier.  And of course being compliant with RFC 3647 which I wasn’t
>> thinking of when I sent my comments, so no issues with that. Sorry!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I’m not a huge fan of the “Common CA fields” where it is vs. with the CA
>> profiles, same with “common Certificate fields”, but I can cope with that.
>> A small bug in the numbering of those last 2 items in your screenshot.
>>
>>
>>
>> Doug
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com>
>> *Sent:* Monday, August 2, 2021 11:54 AM
>> *To:* Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com>; CA/Browser Forum Validation SC
>> List <validation at cabforum.org>
>> *Cc:* Doug Beattie <doug.beattie at globalsign.com>
>> *Subject:* Re: [cabf_validation] Cert Profile spec: question about the
>> outline/ToC
>>
>>
>>
>> And for completeness: This is what the PDF produced looks like from the
>> canonical markdown:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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/20210802/1cf6923e/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 283040 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/attachments/20210802/1cf6923e/attachment-0001.png>