[cabf_validation] Domain Validation Update

[Peter Bowen]

I think putting heading on the methods is not a bad idea.  Anyone want to take a shot proposing a title for each?

> On Mar 11, 2016, at 6:19 AM, Doug Beattie <doug.beattie at globalsign.com> wrote:
> 
> Sure, that works.  Looks like our ballot need to include a change to EVGL, so we should add that to the end of the current document/proposed ballot.
>  
> I mentioned this before, but with the long list of complicated domain validation options, I think each one should be in a numbered subsection under 3.2.2.4, what do others think?
>  
> Also, we might want to number the paragraphs in some of the longer options, like methods 2 and 4, so everyone can more easily reference the specific items.
>   <>
> From: Peter Bowen [mailto:pzb at amzn.com <mailto:pzb at amzn.com>] 
> Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 9:14 AM
> To: Doug Beattie <doug.beattie at globalsign.com <mailto:doug.beattie at globalsign.com>>
> Cc: Jeremy Rowley <jeremy.rowley at digicert.com <mailto:jeremy.rowley at digicert.com>>; validation at cabforum.org <mailto:validation at cabforum.org>
> Subject: Re: [cabf_validation] Domain Validation Update
>  
> EV currently says: "using a procedure specified in Section 3.2.2.4 of the Baseline Requirements, except that a CA MAY NOT verify a domain using the procedure described subsection 3.2.2.4(7)”.
>  
> With the removal of (7) and insertion of other methods, the EV guidelines are going to need updating anyway.  EV can be updated to say “using at least one of the methods specified in BR 3.2.2.4” and then make it own reuse statement.  For example:
>  
> 11.7.1 Verification Requirements
>  
> (1) The CA SHALL confirm that, as of the date the Certificate issues, either the CA or a Delegated Third Party has confirmed, for each Fully-Qualified Domain Name (FQDN) in the Certificate, the authority of the Applicant to receive a Certificate containing the FQDN using at least one of the methods specified in the Baseline Requirements section 3.2.2.4 or via the method described in Appendix F.  The method in Appendix F shall only be used when the right most label in the FQDN is “onion”.
> 
> Completed confirmations of Applicant authority may be valid for the issuance of multiple certificates over time.  In all cases, the confirmation must have been initiated no more than 13 months prior to certificate issuance.
> 
> For purposes of domain validation, the term Applicant includes the Applicant’s Parent Company, Subsidiary Company, or Affiliate.
> 
>  
>  
> On Mar 11, 2016, at 6:06 AM, Doug Beattie <doug.beattie at globalsign.com <mailto:doug.beattie at globalsign.com>> wrote:
>  
> EV references this same section and they are limited to reusing the data to 13 months and up to 27 months for reissue, so this gets a bit complicated if we need to call out durations in this section.
>  
>  
> From: validation-bounces at cabforum.org <mailto:validation-bounces at cabforum.org> [mailto:validation-bounces at cabforum.org <mailto:validation-bounces at cabforum.org>] On Behalf Of Peter Bowen
> Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 9:03 AM
> To: Jeremy Rowley <jeremy.rowley at digicert.com <mailto:jeremy.rowley at digicert.com>>
> Cc: validation at cabforum.org <mailto:validation at cabforum.org>
> Subject: Re: [cabf_validation] Domain Validation Update
>  
> I suggest we change the introduction (lines A & B) to read
>  
> 3.2.2.4. Authorization by Domain Name Registrant
> 
> The CA SHALL confirm that, as of the date the Certificate issues, either the CA or a Delegated Third Party has confirmed, for each Fully-Qualified Domain Name (FQDN) in the Certificate, the authority of the Applicant to receive a Certificate containing the FQDN using at least one of the methods listed below.
> 
> Completed confirmations of Applicant authority may be valid for the issuance of multiple certificates over time.  In all cases, the confirmation must have been initiated no more than 39 months prior to certificate issuance.
> 
> For purposes of domain validation, the term Applicant includes the Applicant’s Parent Company, Subsidiary Company, or Affiliate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There has been lots of discussion about the model where a CA validates domain authorization prior to receiving a specific certificate request.  I think that this revised text should assist in clarifying the situation.  It also make it very clear that the 39 month re-use rule applies to domain authorizations, rather than having to infer it based on the text in "Identification and Authentication for Routine Re‐key”.
>  
> Thanks,
> Peter
>  
>  
> On Mar 10, 2016, at 9:34 PM, Jeremy Rowley <jeremy.rowley at digicert.com <mailto:jeremy.rowley at digicert.com>> wrote:
>  
> Here’s the updated domain validation draft based on today’s discussion (and a couple of attempts to clarify items of confusion).  I look forward to the comments.
> <Domain Validation Draft (3-11-2016).docx>_______________________________________________
> Validation mailing list
> Validation at cabforum.org <mailto: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/20160311/d7ae7a9f/attachment-0001.html