CAcert System Admins discussion list

["Ian G (Audit)" <iang AT cacert.org>]

OK my quick points.  In summary, I skimmed the chances and see nothing 
that is major.  I would go forward with either.  We need to avoid 
perfection as a goal...


On 28/1/09 17:14, Teus Hagen wrote:
> Ian,
>
> An enormous amount of work and so text to be commented upon.
> Have added some comments. Tried to improve the english spellings error
> and typos. And tried to make capital use and word use more consistent.


On that, two very very small points:

  + licence is spelt *licence* in the noun form in British and 
Australian English, however license is American, and the verb form.
  + some words swap between 'll' and 'l' depending.

This is a trickiness that really is a bit annoying and pointless, but 
that's what nations and languages do....

In the past, there were questions about what form of English CAcert 
writes its documents in, and the answer was British/Australian.  I think 
over time these will converge because a lot of net stuff is written in 
American English.  Meanwhile, there is sort of a political / 
jurisdictional message that some poeple like to give, being "we are not 
in the USA."  Obviously a very very very small point!


> Have converted the document to ODT format in order to allow change
> recording (have switch this on). Switch change view to on to see the
> changes I made.


Does anyone else want to work in ODT?  I don't see that....

For me, the value of change recording is not enough to justify the hours 
and hours needed to cleanup the HTML afterwards.  I'd rather copy the 
changes into the existing HTML than muck around with ODT...  Also bear 
in mind that a file name change will break 100s and 100s of links 
throughout wiki and other SVN docs.  And that has to change again when 
it goes on to the website.


> Be warned: it is a lot of work (>50 pages).


Yes, although most CPSs are longer :)  This is shorter than normal 
because the SM, AP, DRP, PoP, CSS take so much away.  It has actually 
shrunk by about 10 or so pages over the last many months.

> There is quite some text which is double in the document. Lots of
> repititions of text :-(

There is ... but it is a waste of time to try and make it perfect, as 
long as the document is approximately right, I think it far far better 
to move it forward to DRAFT.  It isn't a novel!


> In my opinion the X.509 implementation text should go to a separate
> document: X.509 implementation policy? Yes I am looking for simplifying
> this document in some way.


The "normal PKI thing" is to write a CP or Certificate Policy as a 
separate document and do them together.  However, that is a 
PKI/standards view, and as people don't usually read these documents 
anyway, adding more documents is not helpful to outsiders.  Insiders can 
read one document.



iang

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature