[cabf_validation] Error in EVG 11.6.2

[Adriano Santoni]

+1


Il 13/10/2017 21:19, Rich Smith via Validation ha scritto:
>
> I agree that that’s the way it should be read, and I believe that’s 
> the way it was previously written, BUT because the wording is not 
> clear, an auditor or root program representative could take it the 
> other way.  Some of those who might read it the other way may not be 
> particularly subject to reason or common sense, so we should fix it.
>
> *From:* Jeremy Rowley [mailto:jeremy.rowley at digicert.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, October 13, 2017 2:10 PM
> *To:* Rich Smith <richard.smith at comodo.com>; CA/Browser Forum 
> Validation WG List <validation at cabforum.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [cabf_validation] Error in EVG 11.6.2
>
> I read it as an or in each case. There's no "and" between 1-3.
>
>
> On Oct 13, 2017, at 10:06 AM, Rich Smith via Validation 
> <validation at cabforum.org <mailto:validation at cabforum.org>> wrote:
>
>     The text, as currently written requires either a bank letter or
>     professional letter in ALL cases. I know this was not the intent,
>     and was not how this used to be written, so we apparently loused
>     it up in an edit at some point.  Current text:
>
>
>           11.6.2. Acceptable Methods of Verification
>
>     To verify the Applicant’s ability to engage in business, the CA
>     MUST verify the operational existence of the Applicant, or its
>     Affiliate/Parent/Subsidiary Company, by:
>
>     (1) Verifying that the Applicant, Affiliate, Parent Company, or
>     Subsidiary Company has been in existence for at least three years,
>     as indicated by the records of an Incorporating Agency or
>     Registration Agency;
>
>     (2) Verifying that the Applicant, Affiliate, Parent Company, or
>     Subsidiary Company is listed in either a current QIIS or QTIS;
>
>     (3) Verifying that the Applicant, Affiliate, Parent Company, or
>     Subsidiary Company has an active current Demand Deposit Account
>     with a Regulated Financial Institution by receiving authenticated
>     documentation of the Applicant’s, Affiliate’s, Parent Company’s,
>     or Subsidiary Company’s Demand Deposit Account directly from a
>     Regulated Financial Institution; or
>
>     (4) Relying on a Verified Professional Letter to the effect that
>     the Applicant has an active current Demand Deposit Account with a
>     Regulated Financial Institution.
>
>     You’ll notice that, as currently worded, 1 AND 2 PLUS 3 OR 4 is
>     required.  We can fix either by adding ‘or’ to the ends of 1 and
>     2, OR removing ‘or’ at the end of 3 AND changing the opening
>     sentence to:
>
>     “To verify the Applicant’s ability to engage in business, the CA
>     MUST verify the operational existence of the Applicant, or its
>     Affiliate/Parent/Subsidiary Company, by one of the following:”
>
>     I’d like to get a correction ballot out as quickly as possible. 
>     Any preference as to method?  Can I get two endorsers for
>     whichever method we decide on?
>
>     Thanks,
>
>     Rich Smith
>
>     Comodo CA
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     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
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/validation

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/attachments/20171016/f5e55291/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4025 bytes
Desc: Firma crittografica S/MIME
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/attachments/20171016/f5e55291/attachment.p7s>