[cabf_validation] Change to EV 9.2.7

[陳立群]

Peter,

  OK. Now I see. There will be three separate ballots to resolve these issues.  

  And

“[…] locality level MUST include the country and MUST include state or province information if the locality is within a state or province."

   Implies that if the locality is not within a state or province, (Such as those cities, county and Direct-controlled municipality in Taiwan) and the Direct-controlled municipality in some Asia countries, then your draft sentences will solve the issues that I raised in Redmond F2F meeting and 33rd F2F meeting.

   Thank you. Besides, I also want to say thanks to Ben for his help from Oct.,2014. I also want to say thanks to Kirk, Bruce and Jeremy.

    Li-Chun Chen
    Chunghwa Telecom   

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Bowen [mailto:pzb at amzn.com] 
Sent: Friday, March 03, 2017 10:56 AM
To: CA/Browser Forum Validation WG List
Cc: 陳立群
Subject: [外部郵件] Re: [cabf_validation] Change to EV 9.2.7


> On Mar 2, 2017, at 6:21 PM, 陳立群 via Validation <validation at cabforum.org> wrote:
> 
> So I don’t know that I have ever posted in Validation Working Group that State is not required in Taiwan about EVGL 9.2.7.  But it seems in your ballot EVGL 9.2.7, you still let State/Province be required. Did your discussion on Jan.,26  let me divide amendment of  SSL BR 7.1.4.2.2 & EVGL 9.2.5 to other two ballots? And you or Bruce propose Ballot No. 191? 

Upon review of the current requirements and the data provided for Taiwan, we did not find any evidence that Taiwan does not have cities, towns, villages or equivalent in its addresses.  To the contrary, all the examples you provided clear have a city, town, village, or similar in the address.  So there is no conflict with the BRs as written today.  

We do need to fix EVG 9.2.5: "And, the jurisdiction for the applicable Incorporating Agency or Registration Agency at the locality level MUST include the country and state or province information, where the state or province regulates the registration of the entities at the locality level, as well as the locality information.”

This should probably say “[…] locality level MUST include the country and MUST include state or province information if the locality is within a state or province."

>      Note that for central government agency or company, the Naming rule of Taiwan GPKI certificate & CRL profile is somewhat different with SSL BR , so we hope Taiwan or other country will be exception.

This is a separate issue.  The CA/Browser Forum has a set of Naming rules.  You are asking that the Forum change the rules to say “either use the CABF’s naming rules or use the naming rules specified by a country standard”.  Ryan Sleevi has suggested that this should be brought as a distinct ballot to the full forum.  I told Kirk that I would write an email to the public list; I’ll do that now.

Thanks,
Peter=



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.