[cabfpub] Voting on Ballot 218 ends tomorrow (Monday) at 21:50 UTC

By my calculation, voting on Ballot 218 ends Monday, Feb. 5 at 1:50 pm Pacific time, 4:50 pm Eastern time (which should be 21:50 UTC) ___ Public mailing list Public@cabforum.org https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public

[cabfpub] Underlying validation requirements

There has been a lot of discussion of which validation methods are acceptable and meet the bar for issuance of a certificate but I've not seen anyone clearly state the requirements for issuance. I think it is important we agree on what is being certified before we try to fix the validation

Re: [cabfpub] Underlying validation requirements

I completely agree that identifying what is being validated is a prerequisite to effective discussion of the strength of validation methods. Numbers 3 and 4 are the criteria that seem most debatable to me: > 3) the Subject is either the Applicant or a device under the control and operation of

Re: [cabfpub] Underlying validation requirements

Hi Peter, Is the "right to use" (in p. 1) defined somewhere? Thanks, M.D. On 2/4/2018 9:19 PM, Peter Bowen via Public wrote: There has been a lot of discussion of which validation methods are acceptable and meet the bar for issuance of a certificate but I've not seen anyone clearly state

Re: [cabfpub] Underlying validation requirements

I quoted that from the Baseline Requirements but I do not see it defined anywhere. > On Feb 4, 2018, at 1:03 PM, Moudrick M. Dadashov wrote: > > Hi Peter, > > Is the "right to use" (in p. 1) defined somewhere? > > Thanks, > M.D. > > On 2/4/2018 9:19 PM, Peter Bowen via Public

[cabfpub] Review Notices

Virginia – we have been following the steps you listed below, and have been sending out “Review Notices” since Ballot 190 that included the specific Ballot language in “track changes” mode showing how our guidelines (BRs or EVGL) were amended by each Ballot – I believed that this complied with

Re: [cabfpub] Underlying validation requirements

I agree. Before re-discussing the various 3.2.2.4 methods, we should first discuss whether the basic principle ("either ownership or control" of a domain) underlying the issuance of an SSL Server certificate is still valid. I believe that the Applicant's ownership of a domain is an excellent

Re: [cabfpub] Voting begins: Ballot 218 version 2

Actalis "abstains". We appreciate the intent to improve the security of domain validation procedures, but we would have preferred a strengthening of Method 1 - which seemed quite possible - rather than its abolition. Adriano Il 29/01/2018 22:51, Tim Hollebeek via Public ha scritto: I’m