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

[Ryan Sleevi]

D'oh! So I do! Thanks!

On Mon, Aug 2, 2021 at 1:37 PM Doug Beattie <doug.beattie at globalsign.com>
wrote:

> In the screenshot below you have 2 sections numbered 7.1.2.4 and 7.1.2.5.
>
>
>
> *From:* Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, August 2, 2021 1:30 PM
> *To:* Doug Beattie <doug.beattie at globalsign.com>
> *Cc:* CA/Browser Forum Validation SC List <validation at cabforum.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [cabf_validation] Cert Profile spec: question about the
> outline/ToC
>
>
>
> 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/20210802/4b0d16c3/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/20210802/4b0d16c3/attachment-0001.png>