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

[Ryan Sleevi]

https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2018-May/013531.html covers this.

All other optional attributes, when present within the subject field, MUST
contain information that has been verified by the
CA. CAs SHALL NOT include Fully-Qualified Domain Names in Subject
attributes except as specified in Sections 9.2.1
and SHALL NOT include any Subject Organization Information except as
specified in Section 9.2.

organizationIdentifier is Subject Organization Information.
Section 9.2 does not specify that organizationIdentifier is permitted.
Ergo, organizationIdentifier is not permitted.

This is the correct read of the section, as it aligns with the intent,
especially of browsers, to ensure that information presented to users has a
consistent validation standard applied to it.

On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 9:56 AM, Adriano Santoni via Validation <
validation at cabforum.org> wrote:

> 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>
> 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 listValidation at cabforum.orghttps://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/20180611/9b554826/attachment-0001.html>