[cabf_validation] domain registrar as an applicant

[Adriano Santoni]

In fact, I cannot describe any such process based on the current BRs. 
Just wanted to see if anybody had a different opinion...


Il 22/10/2018 15:10, Ryan Sleevi ha scritto:
> I think any CA advocating that would need to describe under 3.2.2.4 
> which method they're using to validate. Could you explain a process 
> that a CA could use that compiles with one of the 3.2.2.4 validation 
> methods that meets that?
>
> There had been some discussion about proposing additional methods - 
> what, during the validation work, had been suggested as "3.2.2.4.13", 
> which was a modification proposed by Peter Bowen at Amazon that would 
> have allowed greater flexibility while still achieving the same 
> security objectives of 3.2.2.4.12, in a more interoperable way. 
> However, Peter didn't push that forward as .13, and no other member 
> stepped up to do so.
>
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 5:25 AM Adriano Santoni via Validation 
> <validation at cabforum.org <mailto:validation at cabforum.org>> wrote:
>
>     All,
>
>     I'd like to get some opinions on the following doubt.
>
>     Can it be inferred, from the BRs, that the entity which is is
>     officialy designated (e.g. by governmental acts) as the /unique/
>     registrar of a certain domain also /controls/ that domain and is
>     therefore "entitled" (subject to the remaining checks required by
>     the BRs) to receive SSL server certificates for such domain and
>     all subdomains thereof? I mean, can we draw this conclusion based
>     on "just" the official documental evidences (e.g. by governmental
>     acts) ? Section 3.2.2.4 of the BRs seems not to allow that - or
>     not too clearly, at any rate.
>
>     (Please note that I am not referring to the particular
>     circumstance addressed by 3.2.2.4.12 of the BRs)
>
>     Adriano
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Validation mailing list
>     Validation at cabforum.org <mailto:Validation at cabforum.org>
>     https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/validation
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/attachments/20181022/d1dfcb6c/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3849 bytes
Desc: Firma crittografica S/MIME
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/attachments/20181022/d1dfcb6c/attachment-0001.p7s>