I think that is a question to be taken up with the authors of SC-74, and with the root programs. In the interest of caution, I think this linting tool should err on the side of strictness. It is open source, however, so you are of course free to modify it for your own preferences.
Aaron On Thu, May 9, 2024, 04:57 Wendy Brown - QT3LB-C <wendy.br...@gsa.gov> wrote: > Aaron - > Can I suggest that maybe the comparison should be done in a case blind > fashion? > For example, requiring the headers for the subsections of 1.3 to have the > second word lower case when it is common practice to refer to Certification > Authorities as CAs and Registration Authorities as RAs, etc. just makes the > document inconsistent. I understand the goal is to try to make comparisons > easier, but requiring all Public Trusted CAs have these style > inconsistencies in their own documentation seems like a step too far. > > thanks, > > Wendy > > > Wendy Brown > > Supporting GSA > > FPKIMA Technical Liaison > > Protiviti Government Services > 703-965-2990 (cell) > > > On Wed, May 8, 2024 at 6:06 PM Aaron Gable via Servercert-wg < > servercert-wg@cabforum.org> wrote: > >> Of course! Done: https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/issues/513 >> >> On Wed, May 8, 2024 at 8:37 AM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) < >> dzach...@harica.gr> wrote: >> >>> Thanks Aaron, >>> >>> Would it be ok for you to create a GitHub issue >>> <https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/issues> to identify the >>> specific sections that deviate in content? We might tackle that in a >>> cleanup ballot. I don't think the capitalization is so much of a concern >>> but if others think it is, please speak up :) >>> >>> >>> Dimitris. >>> >>> On 8/5/2024 1:19 π.μ., Aaron Gable wrote: >>> >>> Two notes on this ballot, findings from our process for handling >>> upcoming requirements: >>> >>> 1) Let's Encrypt has created and open-sourced a tool >>> <https://github.com/letsencrypt/cp-cps/tree/d5b258a/tools/lint> for >>> linting a CPS to confirm compliance with RFC 3647 Section 6 and Ballot >>> SC-074. If you maintain your CPS document in markdown, it should be very >>> simple to use or adapt to your particular situation. >>> >>> 2) The Baseline Requirements themselves do not quite comply with RFC >>> 3647 Section 6, with several section titles that deviate from that outline >>> in either capitalization or actual content. >>> >>> We hope this information is helpful to others, >>> Aaron >>> >>> On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 9:27 AM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) via >>> Servercert-wg <servercert-wg@cabforum.org> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> SC-74 - Clarify CP/CPS structure according to RFC 3647 Summary >>>> >>>> The TLS Baseline Requirements require in section 2.2 that: >>>> >>>> *"The Certificate Policy and/or Certification Practice Statement MUST >>>> be structured in accordance with RFC 3647 and MUST include all material >>>> required by RFC 3647."* >>>> >>>> The intent of this language was to ensure that all CAs' CP and/or CPS >>>> documents contain a similar structure, making it easier to review and >>>> compare against the BRs. However, there was some ambiguity as to the actual >>>> structure that CAs should follow. After several discussions in the SCWG >>>> Public Mailing List >>>> <https://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/servercert-wg/2023-November/004070.html> >>>> and F2F meetings, it was agreed that more clarity should be added to the >>>> existing requirement, pointing to the outline described in section 6 of RFC >>>> 3647. >>>> The following motion has been proposed by Dimitris Zacharopoulos >>>> (HARICA) and endorsed by Aaron Poulsen (Amazon) and Tim Hollebeek >>>> (Digicert). >>>> >>>> You can view the github pull request representing this ballot here >>>> <https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/pull/503>. >>>> Motion Begins >>>> >>>> MODIFY the "Baseline Requirements for the Issuance and Management of >>>> Publicly-Trusted TLS Server Certificates" based on Version 2.0.4 as >>>> specified in the following redline: >>>> >>>> - >>>> >>>> https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/compare/c4a34fe2292022e0a04ba66b5a85df75907ac2a2...f6a90e2a652fbb7a2d62a976b70f4af3adce8dae >>>> >>>> Motion Ends >>>> >>>> This ballot proposes a Final Maintenance Guideline. The procedure for >>>> approval of this ballot is as follows: >>>> Discussion (at least 7 days) >>>> >>>> - Start time: 2024-04-25 16:30:00 UTC >>>> - End time: on or after 2024-05-02 16:30:00 UTC >>>> >>>> Vote for approval (7 days) >>>> >>>> - Start time: TBD >>>> - End time: TBD >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Servercert-wg mailing list >>>> Servercert-wg@cabforum.org >>>> https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/servercert-wg >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >> Servercert-wg mailing list >> Servercert-wg@cabforum.org >> https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/servercert-wg >> >
_______________________________________________ Servercert-wg mailing list Servercert-wg@cabforum.org https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/servercert-wg
