On 27/02/17 19:21, Doug Beattie wrote: > The relationship between the 2 documents is not always clear to me. > If the BRs apply then why do we have statements like this in EGVL, > seems redundant with your assumption? 9.5 Subscriber Public Key - > The requirements in Section 6.1.1.3 of the Baseline requirements > apply equally to EV Certificates.
Perhaps because sometimes if you include text which seems to be conflicting, some clarification is necessary? But I don't think that's true in this case. Alternatively, we aren't always consistent in applying our principles to our drafting :-) > I can't find any reference in the EVGL that says you cannot issue > certificates with IP addresses in them. Is this because we > specifically excluded BR section 3.2.2.5 somehow? If so, is the new > proposed section 3.2.2.8 also excluded from EV via the same > mechanism, assumption or reference? Well, the EV Guidelines don't say how to validate an IP address, and all info in the cert must be validated. But I agree it could be clearer. File a bug? :-) Gerv _______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
