[cabfpub] BR Enterprise RAs

[Ryan Sleevi]

Rich,

Your original proposal didn't quite indicate the problem that you're trying
to solve - or at least, the problem as you see it, and instead only
presented the solution.

Is the issue something to do with the applicable namespace? Is it trying to
designate additional entities as Enterprise RAs?

That is, I see a lot of problems with the proposal as written, and rather
than trying to dissect them all, I'd like to try and understand what your
end-goal is, to see how we can move there.

Cheers,
Ryan


On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Rich Smith <richard.smith at comodo.com>wrote:

> How about editing both to:
>
> The CA MAY contractually authorize the Subject of a specified Valid
> Certificate to perform the RA function and authorize the CA to issue
> additional Certificates at ***the same or higher*** domain levels that are
> contained within the ***verified Domain Namespace*** of the original
> Certificate (also known as an Enterprise Certificate).  In such case, the
> Subject SHALL be considered an Enterprise RA, and the following
> requirements SHALL apply:
>
>
>
> *** indicates where I made the changes.
>
>
>
> -Rich
>
>
>
> *From:* Jeremy Rowley [mailto:jeremy.rowley at digicert.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, January 17, 2014 12:58 PM
> *To:* 'Ryan Sleevi'; 'Rich Smith'
> *Cc:* 'CABFPub'
> *Subject:* RE: [cabfpub] BR Enterprise RAs
>
>
>
> Because the language comes straight from the EV Guidelines.  Maybe we
> should update both at the same time?
>
>
>
> *From:* public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org<public-bounces at cabforum.org>]
> *On Behalf Of *Ryan Sleevi
> *Sent:* Friday, January 17, 2014 10:26 AM
> *To:* Rich Smith
> *Cc:* CABFPub
> *Subject:* Re: [cabfpub] BR Enterprise RAs
>
>
>
> Third or higher is insufficient for most ccTLDs (example.co.uk) or overly
> broad for gTLDs (foo.example).
>
> Is there a reason you didn't simply refer to the registered domain name
> (and any preceding labels)?
>
> That also covers the school.k12.wv.us type registrations as well.
>
> On Jan 17, 2014 9:19 AM, "Rich Smith" <richard.smith at comodo.com> wrote:
>
> Colleagues,
>
> In reviewing internal practices and BR compliance, we have discovered that
> the BRs seem to have a more restricted definition of what an Enterprise RA
> is allowed than the EV Guidelines.  I think this is due simply to the
> wording of the BRs rather than specific intent.  Because of that, I would
> like to propose the following amendment to the BRs.  Please review and let
> me know if you are willing to endorse.
>
>
>
> ----Motion Begins----
>
>
>
> Replace:
>
> 14.2.4      Enterprise RAs
>
> The CA MAY designate an Enterprise RA to verify certificate requests from
> the Enterprise RA’s own organization.
>
> The CA SHALL NOT accept certificate requests authorized by an Enterprise
> RA unless the following requirements are satisfied:
>
> 1.    The CA SHALL confirm that the requested Fully-Qualified Domain
> Name(s) are within the Enterprise RA’s verified Domain Namespace (see
> Section 7.1.2 para 1).
>
>
>
> With the following:
>
> 14.2.4      Enterprise RAs
>
> The CA MAY contractually authorize the Subject of a specified Valid
> Certificate to perform the RA function and authorize the CA to issue
> additional Certificates at third and higher domain levels that are
> contained within the domain of the original Certificate (also known as an
> Enterprise Certificate).  In such case, the Subject SHALL be considered an
> Enterprise RA, and the following requirements SHALL apply:
>
> (1)   An Enterprise RA SHALL NOT authorize the CA to issue an Enterprise
> Certificate at the third or higher domain levels to any Subject other than
> the Enterprise RA or a business that is owned or directly controlled by the
> Enterprise RA;
>
> (2)   In all cases, IF the Enterprise Certificate is to contain
> Organization details, the Subject of an Enterprise Certificate MUST be an
> organization verified by the CA in accordance with these Requirements;
>
> (3)   The CA MUST impose these limitations as a contractual requirement
> with the Enterprise RA and monitor compliance by the Enterprise RA; and,
>
> (4)   The audit requirements of Section 17.1 of these Requirements SHALL
> apply to the Enterprise RA, except in the case where the CA maintains
> control over the Root CA Private Key or Subordinate CA Private Key used to
> issue the Enterprise Certificates, in which case, the Enterprise RA MAY be
> exempted from the audit requirements.  In the case that the Enterprise RA
> is granted a Technically Constrained Subordinate CA Key, Section 17.9 of
> these audit requirements shall apply to the Enterprise RA.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Regards,
>
> Rich Smith
>
> Validation Manager
>
> Comodo
>
> http://www.comodo.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Public mailing list
> Public at cabforum.org
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20140117/9677664e/attachment-0003.html>