I think those two suggested changes are relatively minor and should be made on GitHub where they’ll be tracked. I think they should be made without the necessity of a ballot.
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Robin Alden Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2016 6:20 AM To: 'Mads Egil Henriksveen' <[email protected]>; 'CABFPub' <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 169 problem report 3.2.2.4.6 2. The presence of the Request Token or Request Value contained in the content of a file Should read 2. The presence of the Request Token or Random Value contained in the content of a file From: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Robin Alden Sent: 08 September 2016 10:51 To: 'Mads Egil Henriksveen' <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >; 'CABFPub' <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 169 problem report Thanks, Mads. I agree. I’ll try to get round to posting a ballot for an update. I think as we start to implement the new methods we may pick out other minor niggles like this. Robin From: Mads Egil Henriksveen [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 08 September 2016 07:13 To: Robin Alden <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >; CABFPub <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: RE: [cabfpub] Ballot 169 problem report Hi Robin I noticed this and mentioned it at time of voting - see attachment. I think we should change the reference points to 4.2.1. Regards Mads From: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Robin Alden Sent: 7. september 2016 15:37 To: CABFPub Subject: [cabfpub] Ballot 169 problem report Ballot 169 - “Revised Validation Requirements” introduced text into section 3.2.2.4 which refers to section 3.3.1. “3.2.2.4 … Completed confirmations of Applicant authority may be valid for the issuance of multiple certificates over time. In all cases, the confirmation must have been initiated within the time period specified in the relevant requirement (such as Section 3.3.1 of this document) prior to certificate issuance. For purposes of domain validation, the term Applicant includes the Applicant's Parent Company, Subsidiary Company, or Affiliate. …“ Section 3.3.1 of the BRs now consists only of the section heading, with no body text. “3.3.1. Identification and Authentication for Routine Re‐key” The text which was at 3.3.1 in the guidelines when we started working on what became ballot 169 read: Section 6.3.2 limits the validity period of Subscriber Certificates. The CA MAY use the documents and data provided in Section 3.2 to verify certificate information, provided that the CA obtained the data or document from a source specified under Section 3.2 no more than thirty‐nine (39) months prior to issuing the Certificate. (taken from version 1.3.0 of the BRs) That text now appears as the third paragraph of 4.2.1 (Performing Identification and Authentication Functions) Should we move that text back into 3.3.1, or should we change 3.2.2.4 so that the reference points to 4.2.1 instead of pointing to 3.3.1? Regards Robin Alden Comodo
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
