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

Dimitris Zacharopoulos jimmy at it.auth.gr
Wed Jun 13 04:21:55 MST 2018

On 13/6/2018 1:20 μμ, Ryan Sleevi wrote:
> [snip]
>          o
>>     Could you indicate why, besides that's not what Nick asked for
>>     (noting, most importantly, that the status quo does *not* apply
>>     to PTCs, as clearly stated), you find those problematic?
>     I am not sure I understand your question about the status quo not
>     applying to PTCs. Do you mean that mr. Pope said that his request
>     does not apply to PTCs? I understood the opposite.
> The specification, as written, does not apply to PTCs. It is a private 
> PKI. The request is to change the public PKI so that the private PKI 
> does not have to change. That's... silly.
> Some users are anticipated to want to overlay PTCs with this private 
> usage. That's functionally bad, period - you should keep these PKIs 
> separate. However, rather than telling them (correctly) "No, sorry, 
> this is a bad design" - one that will cause pain similar to payment 
> terminals and SHA-1 - I'm actively trying to engage here to find a 
> solution that doesn't blindly ignore X.520, RFC 5280, or the goal of 
> the BRs. There's no fundamental requirement to use PTCs - so a "no" 
> vote is an even better response - but if we are going to permit it, 
> requiring it be done "right" doesn't seem unreasonable.

We seem to have a misunderstanding about the "private PKI" vs PTC. I 
read the proposal as a more general adoption of the 
organizationIdentifier and not just the payment industry. The referenced 
ETSI TS 119 412-1 V1.2.1, describes in section 5.1.3 semantic guidance 
for Natural Persons and in section 5.1.4 for Legal persons.

Quoting from the TS section 5.1.4:

"The three initial characters shall have one of the following defined 
1) "VAT" for identification based on a national value added tax 
identification number.
2) "NTR" for identification based on an identifier from a national trade 
3) "PSD" for identification based on national authorization number of a 
payment service provider under
Payments Services Directive (EU) 2015/2366 [i.13]. This shall use the 
extended structure as defined in ETSI
TS 119 495 [3], clause 5.2.1. Or
4) Two characters according to local definition within the specified 
country and name registration authority,
identifying a national scheme that is considered appropriate for 
national and European level, followed by the
character ":" (colon).
Other initial character sequences are reserved for future amendments of 
the present document. In case "VAT" legal
person identity type reference is used in combination with the "EU" 
transnational country code, the identifier value
should comply with Council Directive 2006/112/EC [i.12], article 215.
EXAMPLES: "VATBE-0876866142" and "EI:SE-5567971433".

Note that "PSD" is only one of the available options. My participation 
in this discussion was never about the "Payment Services" but for the 
additional unique, unambiguous information of Legal or Natural Entities 
which is already included in OV/IV/EV PTCs and could be expanded.

I hear your arguments on why you think including different sets of 
information in one attribute is a bad idea. I suppose this is definitely 
something mr. Pope should take back to ETSI. Hopefully some brilliant 
minds came together and wrote these proposals that ended up in official 
standards, which of course doesn't mean that everything is perfect or 

If mr. Pope sees the other candidate solutions acceptable, he may 
proceed with an updated proposal. I would support any one :)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/attachments/20180613/683ee199/attachment.html>

More information about the Validation mailing list