Are we talking about what the CA records in its database for the validation method used, or are we talking about annotating the BRs with a record of when a change was made?
-----Original Message----- From: Public [mailto:public-boun...@cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Gervase Markham via Public Sent: Tuesday, August 1, 2017 5:38 AM To: Kirk Hall <kirk.h...@entrustdatacard.com>; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public@cabforum.org> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: Ballot 190 - Recording BR Version Number On 21/07/17 16:02, Kirk Hall via Public wrote: >> The two responses (Gerv's and mine) are not in conflict, and there is no harm in including the extra information in the BRs. I'm a big believer in helping people avoid mistakes when it's easy to do. I don't believe that it's good for there to be two possible ways of recording the relevant information. Either it should be mandated to record the BR version number and method section number, or there should be some other versioning mechanism - but not both. I don't see the objection to BR version number and section number. If a new version of the BRs is published which makes no changes to domain validation methods (a common occurrence), then clearly: BR 1.7.1/Section 3.2.2.4.5 is totally equivalent to BR 1.7.2/Section 3.2.2.4.5 (because there are no changes to section 3.2.2.4.5) and so it doesn't matter which of the two identifiers the CA records. The CA can continue to record compliance with BR 1.7.1 as long as there are no material changes in any future versions of the BRs which affect method 3.2.2.4.5. Gerv _______________________________________________ Public mailing list Public@cabforum.org https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list Public@cabforum.org https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public