Re: NAVER: Public Discussion of Root Inclusion Request

This email closes public discussion and is notice that it is Mozilla’s intent to approve NAVER's request for inclusion. (This starts a 7-day period of last call for objections.) On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 2:10 PM Ben Wilson wrote: > Step 6 of CA Application Process >

Re: NAVER: Public Discussion of Root Inclusion Request

Step 6 of CA Application Process : *Summary of Discussion and Resulting Decision:* One commenter stated that it appeared that a few certificates were misissued, i.e. that the stateOrProvinceName field (“S” field) should probably be the

Re: NAVER: Public Discussion of Root Inclusion Request

Thank you all for the comments during the public discussion phase. All matters raised in this public discussion has been fixed and then published our revised CPS, including changes in sections 4.9.3, 4.9.5, 5.4.1, 9.14, and 9.16.3. You can find the revised CPS v1.5.0 at our repository.

Re: NAVER: Public Discussion of Root Inclusion Request

The 3-week public discussion was to close on Monday, but I'd like Naver to provide any further final comments and give anyone else an opportunity to comment through this Thursday, and then I will proceed with Steps 6-10 (summarize matters, note any remaining items, and make a last call for

Re: NAVER: Public Discussion of Root Inclusion Request

2020년 10월 10일 토요일 오전 7시 31분 12초 UTC+9에 George님이 작성한 내용: > Minor but it seems like all certificates with a stateOrProvinceName field are > misissued. The ST field should probably be the "Gyeonggi-do" as the > "Seongnam-si" entered is a city. > > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > On

Re: NAVER: Public Discussion of Root Inclusion Request

2020년 10월 10일 토요일 오전 7시 31분 12초 UTC+9에 George님이 작성한 내용: > Minor but it seems like all certificates with a stateOrProvinceName field are > misissued. The ST field should probably be the "Gyeonggi-do" as the > "Seongnam-si" entered is a city. > > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > On

Re: NAVER: Public Discussion of Root Inclusion Request

Hi, Please see NBP’s response to Matthias and Ryan’s comments. 2020년 10월 22일 목요일 오전 3시 29분 40초 UTC+9에 Ryan Sleevi님이 작성한 내용: > On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 2:09 PM Matthias van de Meent via > dev-security-policy wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > In the CPS v1.4.3 of NAVER, section 4.9.3, I found the

Re: NAVER: Public Discussion of Root Inclusion Request

On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 2:09 PM Matthias van de Meent via dev-security-policy wrote: > Hi, > > In the CPS v1.4.3 of NAVER, section 4.9.3, I found the following: > > > 4.9.3 Procedure for Revocation Request > > The NAVER BUSINESS PLATFORM processes a revocation request as follows: > > [...] > >

Re: NAVER: Public Discussion of Root Inclusion Request

Hi, In the CPS v1.4.3 of NAVER, section 4.9.3, I found the following: > 4.9.3 Procedure for Revocation Request > The NAVER BUSINESS PLATFORM processes a revocation request as follows: > [...] > 4. For requests from third parties, The NAVER BUSINESS PLATFORM personnel > begin investigating the

Re: NAVER: Public Discussion of Root Inclusion Request

Here is NAVER's response which I am forwarding from them: Here is NAVER Business Platform's response to the comment: - Hello, I am Sooyoung at NAVER Business Platform. As George mentioned, all the certificates, with both of city and province names in

Re: NAVER: Public Discussion of Root Inclusion Request

Minor but it seems like all certificates with a stateOrProvinceName field are misissued. The ST field should probably be the "Gyeonggi-do" as the "Seongnam-si" entered is a city. ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Friday, 9 October 2020 23:09, Ben Wilson via dev-security-policy wrote: >