Bonjour,

The modification of section 3.2.2.4 has consequences on EVG section 11.7.1.
EVG section 11.7.1 says:
(1) […] using a procedure specified in Section 3.2.2.4 of the Baseline 
Requirements, except that a CA MAY NOT verify a domain using the procedure 
described subsection 3.2.2.4(7). […]

Due to this rewriting of BR 3.2.2.4, I guess this Section 11.7.1 of EVG should 
be changed to:
« […] a CA MAY NOT verify a domain using the procedures described subsection 
3.2.2.4.7, 3.2.2.4.8, 3.2.2.4.9, and 3.2.2.4.10. »

Cordialement,
Erwann Abalea

Le 7 sept. 2016 à 15:37, Robin Alden 
<ro...@comodo.com<mailto:ro...@comodo.com>> a écrit :

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

_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
Public@cabforum.org<mailto:Public@cabforum.org>
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public

_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
Public@cabforum.org
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public

Reply via email to