[cabf_validation] [cabfpub] CAB Forum WG Draft

[Jeremy Rowley]

That is a problem. That language didn’t show up until recently. It should be reserved for the section where we actually talk about reuse and just reference the applicable section. Such as:

 

“In all cases, the confirmation must have been initiated within the time period specified in Section 3.3.1 of the relevant requirement. For purposes of domain validation, the term Applicant includes the Applicant’s Parent Company, Subsidiary Company, or Affiliate.”

 

From: Doug Beattie [mailto:doug.beattie at globalsign.com] 
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 5:49 AM
To: Jeremy Rowley; Peter Bowen
Cc: kirk_hall at trendmicro.com; validation (validation at cabforum.org)
Subject: RE: [cabf_validation] [cabfpub] CAB Forum WG Draft

 

I think that is the only statement now -  we did a good job referencing the EVGL in a couple of sections regarding re-use.

 

Just to be sure, is this statement in row B an issue?  

    In all cases, the confirmation must have been initiated no more than 39 months prior to certificate issuance.

 

 

From: Jeremy Rowley [mailto:jeremy.rowley at digicert.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 11:53 PM
To: Peter Bowen <pzb at amzn.com <mailto:pzb at amzn.com> >
Cc: kirk_hall at trendmicro.com <mailto:kirk_hall at trendmicro.com> ; Doug Beattie <doug.beattie at globalsign.com <mailto:doug.beattie at globalsign.com> >; validation (validation at cabforum.org <mailto:validation at cabforum.org> ) <validation at cabforum.org <mailto:validation at cabforum.org> >
Subject: RE: [cabf_validation] [cabfpub] CAB Forum WG Draft

 

Yes – exactly. 

 

From: Peter Bowen [mailto:pzb at amzn.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 6:10 PM
To: Jeremy Rowley
Cc: kirk_hall at trendmicro.com <mailto:kirk_hall at trendmicro.com> ; Doug Beattie; validation (validation at cabforum.org <mailto:validation at cabforum.org> )
Subject: Re: [cabf_validation] [cabfpub] CAB Forum WG Draft

 

I’m assuming the change is to remove ", except that a CA MAY NOT verify a domain using the procedure described subsection 3.2.2.4(7).”, right?

 

On Apr 13, 2016, at 3:27 PM, Jeremy Rowley <jeremy.rowley at digicert.com <mailto:jeremy.rowley at digicert.com> > wrote:

 

I agree. I don’t see a reason not to cover the changes in a single ballot.

 

From:  <mailto:kirk_hall at trendmicro.com> kirk_hall at trendmicro.com [ <mailto:kirk_hall at trendmicro.com> mailto:kirk_hall at trendmicro.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 4:08 PM
To: Doug Beattie; Jeremy Rowley
Cc: validation ( <mailto:validation at cabforum.org> validation at cabforum.org)
Subject: RE: [cabfpub] CAB Forum WG Draft

 

In the past, some have said “we should never have changes to the BRs and changes to the EVGL in the same ballot”, but I strongly disagree – if the changes are related, why not have on one ballot for simplicity?

 

From:  <mailto:validation-bounces at cabforum.org> validation-bounces at cabforum.org [ <mailto:validation-bounces at cabforum.org> mailto:validation-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Doug Beattie
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 10:21 AM
To: Jeremy Rowley
Cc: validation ( <mailto:validation at cabforum.org> validation at cabforum.org)
Subject: Re: [cabf_validation] [cabfpub] CAB Forum WG Draft

 

Reply posted to Validation WG: 

 

Jeremy – is it necessary to have an EV ballot or change accompany this ballot, if so, do we need to prepare that also and somehow link them or combine them?


Doug

 

From:  <mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org> public-bounces at cabforum.org [ <mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org> mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Rowley
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 1:01 PM
To:  <mailto:public at cabforum.org> public at cabforum.org
Subject: [cabfpub] CAB Forum WG Draft

 

Attached is the WG approved version of the domain validation ballot. Unless there are new thoughts on the proposal, we plan to move this version forward to a ballot. 

 

Thanks!

Jeremy



 
TREND MICRO EMAIL NOTICE
The information contained in this email and any attachments is confidential 
and may be subject to copyright or other intellectual property protection. 
If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to use or 
disclose this information, and we request that you notify us by reply mail or
telephone and delete the original message from your mail system.

 

_______________________________________________
Validation mailing list
 <mailto:Validation at cabforum.org> Validation at cabforum.org
 <https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/validation> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/validation

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/attachments/20160418/0ce5beaf/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4964 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : https://cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/attachments/20160418/0ce5beaf/attachment-0001.bin