[cabf_validation] [EXTERNAL] Draft Ballot SCXX: Improve OU validation requirements
Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA)
dzacharo at harica.gr
Mon Nov 23 23:33:52 MST 2020
On 24/11/2020 12:34 π.μ., Ryan Sleevi wrote:
> To use an example, if a CA were to define in its CP/CPS an
> extension that follows exactly the description of the
> /cabfOrganizationIdentifier/ as described in section 9.8.2 of the
> EV Guidelines (my previous example was flawed), describe the same
> EVG validation rules for that extension and include this extension
> in an OV Certificate, wouldn't that be compliant with the BRs?
> No, not inherently.
I'm sorry for being confused with this response, I was expecting a "yes"
because for this example we have documented CABF agreed validation
rules, which should unambiguously meet all of BRs 126.96.36.199 requirements.
Which part, in your opinion, doesn't fulfill the 188.8.131.52 section? I
think it is important to understand this point because if this example
doesn't fulfill BRs 184.108.40.206 for custom extensions, I don't know what will.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Validation