[cabf_validation] Proposed Update to EV to include OrganisationIdentifier as per ETSI standard

[Adriano Santoni]

All,

do not the current EVGLs already allow the inclusion of extra attributes 
(such as, for instance, the organizationIdentifier) in the Subject, 
provided that they contain "information that has been verified by the CA" ?

Adriano


Il 11/06/2018 15:37, Ryan Sleevi via Validation ha scritto:
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 9:25 AM, Dimitris Zacharopoulos 
> <jimmy at it.auth.gr <mailto:jimmy at it.auth.gr>> wrote:
>
>
>
>     On 11/6/2018 4:00 μμ, Ryan Sleevi wrote:
>>     That seems like a strictly worse proposal, because it does not
>>     define any validation requirements. Also, the interpretation of
>>     BRs 7.1.4.2.2 wasn't aligned with the discussion.
>>
>
>     My proposal tried to address specific concerns about the
>     "exclusive" use of the organizationIdentifier by ETSI. If you are
>     concerned about the validation requirements, we should address
>     those but I wouldn't expect them to be materially different than
>     the validation of the "Registration Number".
>
>
> I'm afraid it may not have been explained well, then, because the core 
> of the issue was that
> 1) It restricts this field to exclusive use of ETSI without defining 
> the context for where it's identified as such
> 2) For the ETSI case, it doesn't prevent other organizations for 
> issuing in this in a way that can be seen as confusing/misleading
>
> So as I said, this is explicitly worse, because it removes validation 
> requirements and does not address the CA needs to disambiguate between 
> ETSI and non-ETSI certs. The entire value proposition of using this 
> field is to that it's validated information - but as mentioned, we can 
> avoid this whole problem by not sticking it in the subject.
>
>>     As discussed during the F2F, it seems that there's a far more
>>     viable option that's aligned with publicly trusted certificates,
>>     namely, that of aligning in the QcStatements. We spent quite some
>>     time trying to understand the rationale and necessity of encoding
>>     in the subject, as it seemed like it was based on both a
>>     misunderstanding of the value proposition and of the technical
>>     necessity.
>>
>>     I would again reiterate those concerns, to ask why this
>>     information cannot be encoded within the qcStatements.
>
>     As you said, both would be "viable" options so there is no
>     misunderstanding about the technical necessity. They should both
>     work. I believe that since this identifier is very specific
>     information directly-coupled with the Subject of the Certificate,
>     it should be in the designated extension which is the Subject DN.
>     For me, it doesn't make sense to include information related
>     uniquely to the Subject, in the qcStatements. All the existing
>     ETSI TS or EN documents related to the qcStatements extensions do
>     not contain identifiable information related to the Subject. Mr.
>     Pope can correct me if I'm wrong here.
>
>
> Are those concerns shared with subjectAltName? There's no technical 
> need to stuff that information in the subject, and ample and 
> compelling reason not to.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180611/011759ee/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/20180611/011759ee/attachment.p7s>