Ah, yes, you´re right Corey. That´s a typo. I´ll withdraw the ballot (according to section 2.3(4) of the bylaws), make the correspondent change and submit it again.
Regards De: Corey Bonnell <[email protected]> Enviado el: viernes, 16 de febrero de 2024 18:51 Para: Inigo Barreira <[email protected]>; CA/B Forum Server Certificate WG Public Discussion List <[email protected]> Asunto: RE: [Servercert-wg] [Discussion Period Begins]: SC65: Convert EVGs into RFC 3647 format Hi Inigo, It appears the hyperlink I provided doesnt immediately highlight the line (you have to go digging for it). Perhaps explaining it would be easier: EVG version 1.8.0, section 9.8.2 says: where the subfields have the same values, meanings, and restrictions described in Section 9.2.8. The CA SHALL validate the contents using the requirements in Section 9.2.8. Section 9.2.8 is Subject Organization Identifier Field. This draft has in section 7.1.2.2: where the subfields have the same values, meanings, and restrictions described in [Section 7.1.4.2.1](#71428-subject-organization-identifier-field). The CA SHALL validate the contents using the requirements in [Section 7.1.4.2.1](#71428-subject-organization-identifier-field). Section 7.1.4.2.1 is Subject Organization Name Field. This is not correct, as it needs to be a reference to section 7.1.4.2.8. It looks like the link (which is informative) was updated to correctly point to 7.1.4.2.8, but the actual text of the document (which is normative) specifies the incorrect section number. Thanks, Corey From: Inigo Barreira <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, February 16, 2024 12:40 PM To: Corey Bonnell <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >; CA/B Forum Server Certificate WG Public Discussion List <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: RE: [Servercert-wg] [Discussion Period Begins]: SC65: Convert EVGs into RFC 3647 format Hi Corey, No worries for this late feedback. I´ll try to address it anyway 1. Sorry but I don´t see that under line 1303 (I see CRL frequency) but in any case, as said I haven´t changed anything, so if it´s something that needs to be addressed because it´s misleading, we could do it in another ballot. If the issue is that I changed something inadvertently, please let me know where it is exactly because I can´t find it. I assume, in any case, that are you referring to current section 9.2.8? 2. Yes, this ballot will be updated with the latest version derived from SC68, so will include that change. Currently is under review period and finishes in 2 weeks. If this SC65 is approved, it will be updated based on that new version. The issue is that at the time of sending, you can only work with the current version. 3. Well, I think I indicated somehow by saying without changing any content, just moving current sections but it´s not as formal as your suggestion. But in any case, there´s no normative requirement changes. No new text has been added not any other update of the current text. Regards De: Corey Bonnell <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Enviado el: viernes, 16 de febrero de 2024 15:46 Para: Inigo Barreira <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >; CA/B Forum Server Certificate WG Public Discussion List <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Asunto: RE: [Servercert-wg] [Discussion Period Begins]: SC65: Convert EVGs into RFC 3647 format Hi Inigo, I did a cursory review of the draft ballot and have a few comments: 1. Line 1303 indicates that the values of the CABFOrganizationIdentifier extension MUST be derived from the OrganizationName attribute as opposed to the OrganizationIdentifier attribute: https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/compare/41f01640748fa612386f8b1a3031c d1bff3d4f35..65b69fe0ab5365a002c3d4b668d3f2ab81079411?diff=split <https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/compare/41f01640748fa612386f8b1a3031 cd1bff3d4f35..65b69fe0ab5365a002c3d4b668d3f2ab81079411?diff=split&w=#diff-f7 368cf58de0586cb0ad80e242205ab3272314af71f4115b99187f49521da529R1303> &w=#diff-f7368cf58de0586cb0ad80e242205ab3272314af71f4115b99187f49521da529R13 03 2. The changes in Appendix H introduced by SC-68 (to allow EL and XI in the VAT Registration Scheme) need to be contemplated in accordance with Bylaws 2.4 (10). Depending on the urgency of this ballot, it might be easier to wait until SC-68 (presumably) clears IPR and is published before initiating voting. 3. Are there any normative requirements changes introduced in this ballot? If there are none, it would be useful to indicate that there are no normative requirements changes in the ballot preamble so that the intent of the language changes is clear. Thanks, Corey From: Servercert-wg <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > On Behalf Of Inigo Barreira via Servercert-wg Sent: Friday, February 9, 2024 8:30 AM To: CA/B Forum Server Certificate WG Public Discussion List <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: [Servercert-wg] [Discussion Period Begins]: SC65: Convert EVGs into RFC 3647 format Summary: The Extended Validation Certificates guidelines (EVGs) were developed and written in a specific format. Since then, the RFC 3647 has been the basis (and the de-facto standard) for the CA/Browser Forum to develop other documents. This ballot aims to update the EVGs to follow the RFC 3647 format without changing any content, just moving current sections to those defined in the RFC 3647. This change also affects the Baseline Requirements for TSL certificates (BRs) which needs to point to the new sections of the EVGs. This ballot is proposed by Iñigo Barreira (Sectigo) and endorsed by Pedro Fuentes (OISTE) and Ben Wilson (Mozilla). --- Motion Begins --- This ballot modifies the Baseline Requirements for the Issuance and Management of Publicly-Trusted TLS Certificates" ("TLS Baseline Requirements"), based on Version 2.0.2 and the Guidelines for the Issuance and Management of Extended Validation Certificates (EVGs) based on Version 1.8.0. MODIFY the TLS EVGs and BRs as specified in the following Redline: <https://url.avanan.click/v2/___https:/github.com/cabforum/servercert/compar e/90a98dc7c1131eaab01af411968aa7330d315b9b...65b69fe0ab5365a002c3d4b668d3f2a b81079411___.YXAzOmRpZ2ljZXJ0OmE6bzoyZmIwNGQzNmUyMGY4MzM5OTU3NWYwNDM0NzI3ZDM wYzo2OmYxNTI6MTY2NDE3Njk1NjhmMDhkNjFiOGZmZDk3OWNiNWQwOTkwZmUwMTk3MjFjYTA3ODA xMDAyNTExYjI0MTM2OTdiMDpoOkY> Comparing 90a98dc7c1131eaab01af411968aa7330d315b9b...65b69fe0ab5365a002c3d4b668d3f2ab8 1079411 · cabforum/servercert (github.com) --- Motion Ends --- This ballot proposes a Final Maintenance Guideline for the BRs and EVGs. The procedure for approval of this ballot is as follows: Discussion (at least 7 days) 1. Start time: 2024-02-09 14:30:00 UTC 2. End time: not before 2024-02-16 14:30:00 UTC Vote for approval (7 days) 1. Start time: TBD 2. End time: TBD
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Servercert-wg mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/servercert-wg
