[cabf_validation] Proposed ballot - EV State Optional
Jeremy Rowley
jeremy.rowley at digicert.com
Thu Jan 26 08:34:55 MST 2017
On the last call we discussed referencing the baseline requirements for this section instead if having the ev guidelines say something different. Doesn't that solve the issue?
On Jan 26, 2017, at 6:32 AM, 陳立群 via Validation <validation at cabforum.org<mailto:validation at cabforum.org>> wrote:
I post the English web site URL and the address of important Direct-controlled municipality government, city government and county government in Taiwan as below. Those addresses are copied from English websites. You will see that no State/Province in Taiwan.
1. Taipei City Government :http://english.gov.taipei/ Address:No.1, City Hall Rd., Xinyi District, Taipei City 11008, Taiwan (R.O.C.)
2. New Taipei City Government: http://foreigner.ntpc.gov.tw/ NO.161 , Sec, 1 , Zhongshan Rd, Banqiao District , New Taipei City 22001, Taiwan (ROC)
3. Taoyuan City Government: https://www.tycg.gov.tw/eng/ Address:No.1, Xianfu Rd.,Taoyuan Dist., Taoyuan City 33001, Taiwan (R.O.C.)
4. Taichung City Government http://eng.taichung.gov.tw/ No. 99, Sec. 3, Taiwan Boulevard, Xitun Dist., Taichung City 40701, Taiwan (R.O.C.)
5. Tainan City Government: http://www.tainan.gov.tw/tainanE/page.asp?id={65B3F0B8-6D41-458D-B8A2-CC2DE97E867F}
Yonghua Civic Center 70801 No. 6 Yonghua Road, Sec. 2, Anping District, Tainan City
MinJhih Civic Center 73001 No. 36 MinJhih Road, Sinying District, Tainan City
6.Kaohsiung City Government http://www.kcg.gov.tw/EN/Default.aspx No. 2, Sihwei 3rd Road, Lingya District, Kaohsiung City, 80203, Taiwan (R.O.C.)
7. Keelung City Government http://www.klcg.gov.tw/en/Default/Index No.1, Yi First Road, Keelung City, Taiwan 20201
8. Yilan County Government http://enwww.e-land.gov.tw/Default.aspx No.1, Xianzheng N. Rd., Yilan City, Yilan County 26060, Taiwan (R.O.C.)
9. Hualien County Government: http://www.hl.gov.tw/bin/home.php?Lang=en Address : 97001, No.17, Fuqian Rd., Hualien City, Hualien County 970, Taiwan (R.O.C.)
10. Taitung City Government http://www.taitung.gov.tw/en/Default.aspx No.276, Zhongshan Rd., Taitung City 95001, Taiwan (R.O.C.)
11. Kinmen County Government: http://www.kinmen.gov.tw/KinmenWeb/wSite/page/10.html No.60, Minsheng Rd., Jincheng Township, Kinmen County 893, Taiwan (R.O.C.)
12. Lienchiang County Government): http://www.matsu.gov.tw/en/ No.76, Jieshou Village, Nangan Township, Lienchiang County 20941 , Taiwan (R.O.C.)
13.Hsinchu County Government：http://www.hsinchu.gov.tw/en-us No.10, Guangming 6th Rd., Zhubei City, Hsinchu County 30210, Taiwan R.O.C.
14.Hsinchu City Governmenthttps://www.hccg.gov.tw/en/ No. 120 Zhongzheng Road, Hsinchu City, 30051, Taiwan, ROC
15. Miaoli County Government http://www.miaoli.gov.tw/eng/8-1.php No.100, Xianfu Rd., Miaoli City, Miaoli County, Taiwan 36001, R.O.C
16. Changhua County Government https://www.chcg.gov.tw/eng/00home/home.asp Address:No.416, Sec. 2, Zhongshan Rd., Changhua City, Changhua County 500, Taiwan (R.O.C.)
17. Yunlin County Government
http://www.yunlin.gov.tw/english/index.asp Address: No.515, Sec. 2, Yunlin Rd., Douliu City, Yunlin County 64001, Taiwan (R.O.C)
18. Chiayi County Government http://www.cyhg.gov.tw/en/ No.1, E. Sec., Xianghe 1st Rd., Taibao City, Chiayi County 612, Taiwan (R.O.C.)
19. Chiayi City Government http://www.chiayi.gov.tw/2015web/en/ Address：No.199, Zhongshan Rd., East Dist., Chiayi City 600, Taiwan (R.O.C.)
20. Pingtung County Government https://www.pthg.gov.tw/en/Default.aspx Address :No.527, Ziyou Rd., Pingtung City, Pingtung County 90001, Taiwan (R.O.C.)
21. Penghu County Government http://www.penghu.gov.tw/en/ Address:No.32, Jhihping Rd., Magong City Penghu County 88043, Taiwan (R.O.C.)
22. Nantou County Government http://www.nantou.gov.tw/english/index.asp Address：No.660, Zhongxing Rd., Nantou City, Nantou County 54001, Taiwan (R.O.C.)
Sincerely Yours,
Li-Chun Chen
From: Validation [mailto:validation-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of md via Validation
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2016 3:56 PM
To: Adriano Santoni; CA/Browser Forum Validation WG List
Cc: md
Subject: [外部郵件] Re: [cabf_validation] Proposed ballot - EV State Optional
Right, however in case of counties like Lithuania, maybe Taiwan, these categories have no meaning.
That's why we need the 'state or province' be optional only for countiries where it has no meaning, otherwise - Required.
Are you ok with this?
Thanks,
M.D.
Sent from Samsung tablet.
-------- Original message --------
From: Adriano Santoni <adriano.santoni at staff.aruba.it<mailto:adriano.santoni at staff.aruba.it>>
Date: 12/16/16 09:41 (GMT+02:00)
To: "Moudrick M. Dadashov" <md at ssc.lt<mailto:md at ssc.lt>>, CA/Browser Forum Validation WG List <validation at cabforum.org<mailto:validation at cabforum.org>>
Subject: Re: [cabf_validation] Proposed ballot - EV State Optional
Okay, but then - in my acception - "state or province" has a real meaning in both Germany and UK (do not know about Taiwan).... no?
Il 16/12/2016 08:29, Moudrick M. Dadashov ha scritto:
Hi Adriano,
This is exactly what Tim proposed, whenever "state" or "province" has real meaning - use it, otherwise, its optional.
Thanks,
M.D.
On 12/16/2016 9:10 AM, Adriano Santoni via Validation wrote:
Including StateOrProvince helps disambiguating the address of the certificate holder, which seems to me an important information in both OV and EV certificates, and there are several cases where - given just a country and a locality - the exact location remains uncertain because of homonyms.
It is true that subdivisions named "state" or "province" do not exist in all countries, but in most countries other subdivisions do exist (eg. counties, regions, departments, Länder, etc.), and I do not see why those cannot be specified in StateOrProvince....they should, IMO.
Adriano
Il 15/12/2016 19:53, Bruce Morton via Validation ha scritto:
My concern with the list is that it will take some time to evaluate and come to agreement on 249 countries. Once that is completed, then we will have to maintain the list forever.
I think that the CAs have been verifying Place of Business appropriately, but the guidelines are just poorly worded. The result is we do not know how to handle countries with no states and countries that have states, but do not use them as part of the address. This also means that the auditor can state that we have problems when we either do not include the state field or falsely put information in the state field.
I would prefer that we just change the wording to as Tim put it, “if it’s in the address, it’s required.” If moving forward, we see a vulnerability with this method, then let’s at that time to consider the other method.
Thanks, Bruce.
*From:* Tim Hollebeek [mailto:THollebeek at trustwave.com]
*Sent:* Thursday, December 15, 2016 1:41 PM
*To:* Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com><mailto:Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>; CA/Browser Forum Validation WG List <validation at cabforum.org><mailto:validation at cabforum.org>; Bruce Morton <Bruce.Morton at entrustdatacard.com><mailto:Bruce.Morton at entrustdatacard.com>
*Subject:* RE: Proposed ballot - EV State Optional
Yes I like that even better as we can all debate the merits of each case and agree on the correct handling so there is absolutely no ambiguity. Each country does tend to have subtle differences when we’ve previously discussed this on the policy calls.
But people don’t seem to want to do that, and if they still don’t, I think “if it’s in the address, it’s required” is a reasonable low effort solution to move forward.
*From:*Kirk Hall [mailto:Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com]
*Sent:* Thursday, December 15, 2016 1:35 PM
*To:* CA/Browser Forum Validation WG List; Bruce Morton
*Cc:* Tim Hollebeek
*Subject:* RE: Proposed ballot - EV State Optional
Another possibility is to leave state or province as required, but then add:
“State or province is not required for the countries listed on Appendix X”
Then we add places (Taiwan, Monaco, Vatican City, Germany, United Kingdom) as people bring them forward. We could include an initial list with this ballot to avoid having to prepare another ballot to add places.
*From:* Validation [mailto:validation-bounces at cabforum.org] *On Behalf Of *Tim Hollebeek via Validation
*Sent:* Thursday, December 15, 2016 10:26 AM
*To:* Bruce Morton <Bruce.Morton at entrustdatacard.com<mailto:Bruce.Morton at entrustdatacard.com> <mailto:Bruce.Morton at entrustdatacard.com><mailto:Bruce.Morton at entrustdatacard.com>>; CA/Browser Forum Validation WG List <validation at cabforum.org<mailto:validation at cabforum.org> <mailto:validation at cabforum.org><mailto:validation at cabforum.org>>
*Cc:* Tim Hollebeek <THollebeek at trustwave.com<mailto:THollebeek at trustwave.com> <mailto:THollebeek at trustwave.com><mailto:THollebeek at trustwave.com>>
*Subject:* Re: [cabf_validation] Proposed ballot - EV State Optional
Yes, I like something along those lines.
*From:*Bruce Morton [mailto:Bruce.Morton at entrustdatacard.com]
*Sent:* Thursday, December 15, 2016 1:25 PM
*To:* Tim Hollebeek; CA/Browser Forum Validation WG List
*Subject:* RE: Proposed ballot - EV State Optional
How about this?
Required/Optional:
City and country – Required;
State – Required, if verified per Section 11.4.1 as part of the address for the Place of Business;
Street and postal code – Optional
If there is no state or the state is not used as part of the address, then it is not required.
Bruce.
*From:* Tim Hollebeek [mailto:THollebeek at trustwave.com]
*Sent:* Thursday, December 15, 2016 10:19 AM
*To:* CA/Browser Forum Validation WG List <validation at cabforum.org<mailto:validation at cabforum.org> <mailto:validation at cabforum.org><mailto:validation at cabforum.org>>
*Cc:* Bruce Morton <Bruce.Morton at entrustdatacard.com<mailto:Bruce.Morton at entrustdatacard.com> <mailto:Bruce.Morton at entrustdatacard.com><mailto:Bruce.Morton at entrustdatacard.com>>
*Subject:* RE: Proposed ballot - EV State Optional
But City + Country is not unique in many common, important cases (“Springfield, United States”), and the state is also important since state laws tend to vary quite a bit in the US … I think something more in the spirit of the current BRs that does a better job of tightening up what “where applicable” means would be better.
I don’t want to lose the requirement that US EV certificates MUST include the state.
-Tim
*From:*Validation [mailto:validation-bounces at cabforum.org] *On Behalf Of *Bruce Morton via Validation
*Sent:* Thursday, December 15, 2016 9:28 AM
*To:* CA/Browser Forum Validation WG List
*Cc:* Bruce Morton
*Subject:* [cabf_validation] Proposed ballot - EV State Optional
Here is a proposed ballot per my action.
Thanks, Bruce.
*Background*:
There is confusion on whether the state or province OID MUST be included in an EV certificate. EV section 9.2.7 states in one place “State or province (where applicable)” and also “City, state and country – Required.”
Since many countries do not have states or provinces and some that do have states or provinces do not use them for their address, it is proposed that inclusion of the state or province OID should be optional.
*-- MOTION BEGINS --*
/Current section 9.2.7 of EV Guidelines/:
*Required/Optional:*City, state, and country – Required; Street and postal code – Optional
/Proposed section 9.2.7 of EV Guidelines:/
*Required/Optional:*City and country – Required; Street, state and postal code – Optional
*-- MOTION ENDS -- *
The review period for this ballot shall commence at 2200 UTC on XX, and will close at 2200 UTC on XX. Unless the motion is withdrawn during the review period, the voting period will start immediately thereafter and will close at 2200 UTC on XX. Votes must be cast by posting an on-list reply to this thread.
A vote in favor of the motion must indicate a clear 'yes' in the response. A vote against must indicate a clear 'no' in the response. A vote to abstain must indicate a clear 'abstain' in the response. Unclear responses will not be counted. The latest vote received from any representative of a voting member before the close of the voting period will be counted. Voting members are listed here: https://cabforum.org/members/ <https://scanmail.trustwave.com/?c=4062&d=4uLS2LctdUselJfNN_qKqhlUiQGKRBR1RnDgtqpA8A&s=5&u=https%3a%2f%2fcabforum%2eorg%2fmembers%2f><https://scanmail.trustwave.com/?c=4062&d=4uLS2LctdUselJfNN_qKqhlUiQGKRBR1RnDgtqpA8A&s=5&u=https%3a%2f%2fcabforum%2eorg%2fmembers%2f>
In order for the motion to be adopted, two thirds or more of the votes cast by members in the CA category and greater than 50% of the votes cast by members in the browser category must be in favor. Quorum is currently nine (9) members– at least nine members must participate in the ballot, either by voting in favor, voting against, or abstaining.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This transmission may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the information contained herein (including any reliance thereon) is strictly prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please immediately contact the sender and destroy the material in its entirety, whether in electronic or hard copy format.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This transmission may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the information contained herein (including any reliance thereon) is strictly prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please immediately contact the sender and destroy the material in its entirety, whether in electronic or hard copy format.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This transmission may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the information contained herein (including any reliance thereon) is strictly prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please immediately contact the sender and destroy the material in its entirety, whether in electronic or hard copy format.
_______________________________________________
Validation mailing list
Validation at cabforum.org<mailto:Validation at cabforum.org>
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/validation
_______________________________________________
Validation mailing list
Validation at cabforum.org<mailto:Validation at cabforum.org>
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/validation
--
Cordiali saluti,
Adriano Santoni
ACTALIS S.p.A.
(Aruba Group)
本信件可能包含中華電信股份有限公司機密資訊,非指定之收件者,請勿蒐集、處理或利用本信件內容,並請銷毀此信件. 如為指定收件者,應確實保護郵件中本公司之營業機密及個人資料,不得任意傳佈或揭露,並應自行確認本郵件之附檔與超連結之安全性,以共同善盡資訊安全與個資保護責任.
Please be advised that this email message (including any attachments) contains confidential information and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy this message and all attachments from your system and do not further collect, process, or use them. Chunghwa Telecom and all its subsidiaries and associated companies shall not be liable for the improper or incomplete transmission of the information contained in this email nor for any delay in its receipt or damage to your system. If you are the intended recipient, please protect the confidential and/or personal information contained in this email with due care. Any unauthorized use, disclosure or distribution of this message in whole or in part is strictly prohibited. Also, please self-inspect attachments and hyperlinks contained in this email to ensure the information security and to protect personal information.
_______________________________________________
Validation mailing list
Validation at cabforum.org<mailto:Validation at cabforum.org>
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/validation
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/attachments/20170126/7dbc09d0/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Validation
mailing list