[cabfpub] EV Gudelines section 9.2.5 & X.520

[Moudrick M. Dadashov]

On 7/13/2016 8:33 PM, Ryan Sleevi wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 10:26 AM, Rich Smith <richard.smith at comodo.com 
> <mailto:richard.smith at comodo.com>> wrote:
>
>     I don't have any concrete objection to these OIDs being maintained
>     under Microsoft's hierarchy, however as memory serves they were
>     put there because at the time the CA/B Forum did not have an OID
>     hierarchy of our own under which to create them.  Personally I
>     think it would be a good idea to duplicate these OIDs in house at
>     this point, and over time deprecate the use of the ones under the
>     Microsoft structure.  I don't think this is a pressing issue, and
>     probably not even strictly necessary, but I do see it as a matter
>     of good 'house-keeping'.  If they're under CA/B Forum control we
>     don't need to ask someone else to define them, and we don't have
>     to accept their definition if it's one we don't necessarily agree
>     with.
>
>
> I'm not sure I understand these last points, practically speaking.
>
> Why is it a matter of good-housekeeping? The counter-argument is it 
> sounds like NIH-syndrome.
>
> Why do we need to ask someone to define them, considering they're 
> defined already? Why do we need to worry about accepting the 
> definition, considering it's already been accepted?
>
> I'm explicitly opposed to the change as argued because it means 
> needless churn and complexity in software. If this were a fresh start, 
> I would be understanding - but even then, I'd be opposed to putting it 
> under a CA/B Forum arc 'simply because', if an alternative presented 
> itself. For example, if a member/vendor in possession of a small OID 
> arc were willing to 'donate' OIDs for future purposes that were 
> smaller, in their encoded form, then the OID arc of the CA/B Forum 
> (presently, 2.23.140, so I mean, it's unlikely but possible), then 
> great - let's do that instead.
>
> I'm also not opposed to moving to a CA/B Forum set of OIDs if there 
> were other compelling reasons to. But so far, it seems to solely be 
> about 'branding' than any concrete technical need. Am I missing something?

Maybe not just "branding" :)

Consider OIDs  specifically representing CA/B Forum policy provisions, I 
mean similar to those in RFC 3739.

Thanks,

M.D.

>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160713/453ae97d/attachment-0003.html>