[cabf_validation] Proposed ballot on improving Registration Number language in EVGs

Tue Aug 27 16:58:12 UTC 2024

My opinion is that all requirements need to be stated in RFC 2119 language and be present in the body of the document in order to be treated as normative requirements. That should be an uncontroversial view. I suspect our auditor friends have a similar view. I don’t think it’s a particularly hard line or strict view, it’s just what’s necessary to prevent ambiguity as to what the requirements are.

I would be fine with once in the section. Something along the lines of “The Date of Formation MUST be formatted according to the complete representation of an extended format calendar date in ISO 8601 (i.e. YYYY-MM-DD; e.g. 0001-01-01).”

-Tim

From: Clint Wilson <clintw at apple.com> 
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 9:06 AM
To: Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com>; CABforum3 <validation at cabforum.org>
Cc: Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) <dzacharo at harica.gr>
Subject: Re: [cabf_validation] Proposed ballot on improving Registration Number language in EVGs

Hi Tim,

I think including the format of this specific date type in the definition is totally reasonable, given that it’s not applicable to any other date types and so can very much exist intrinsically as part of the definition. That is, I don’t agree with the seemingly hard line you’re drawing in your statement — and, even moreso, I don’t believe such a statement is backed by consensus within the Forum so I also don’t want it construed as more than your opinion, as indeed is my above statement that it can be part of the definition.

All that said, I do agree putting it in-line in the EVGs would work just fine too. Are you then imagining we would repeat this format requirement alongside each of the four times the term is used in 7.1.4.2.5 or just state it once somewhere in that section? Do you have some example text you can provide to show what you’re proposing as an alternative approach?

Thank you,

-Clint

On Aug 26, 2024, at 10:32 AM, Tim Hollebeek via Validation <validation at cabforum.org <mailto:validation at cabforum.org> > wrote:

This is a requirement, and any requirements around how dates should be formatted need to be stated as such in the appropriate profile section. It MUST NOT be stated in the definition.

-Tim

From: Validation <validation-bounces at cabforum.org <mailto:validation-bounces at cabforum.org> > On Behalf Of Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) via Validation
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2024 2:26 AM
To: CABforum3 <validation at cabforum.org <mailto:validation at cabforum.org> >
Subject: Re: [cabf_validation] Proposed ballot on improving Registration Number language in EVGs

On 16/8/2024 2:53 π.μ., Clint Wilson via Validation wrote:

Hi Corey, 

Overall this seems like a good improvement to clarity of the current expectations related to these sections of the EVGs, reflecting the predominant approach to populating the subject:serialNumber field for EV TLS certificates. I do think it would be valuable to standardize on a date format (admittedly somewhat because it feels like a missed opportunity to not do so). What about something like modifying the newly added definition:

**Date of Formation**: The date on which a Legal Entity is first recognized by the jurisdiction in which it was created or formed. The date is formatted according to the complete representation of an extended format calendar date in ISO 8601 (i.e. YYYY-MM-DD; e.g. 0001-01-01).

Hi Clint,

I'm in favor of examples where they help avoid unintended mistakes, so I would support adding something like "e.g. 2000-12-31" to make it abundantly clear where the month and day is supposed to be represented.

Thanks,
Dimitris.

The parenthetical is probably too much, but you get the idea. And then the three instances of "in any one of the common date formats” could just be deleted.

Cheers,

-Clint

On Aug 9, 2024, at 8:55 AM, Corey Bonnell via Validation  <mailto:validation at cabforum.org> <validation at cabforum.org>wrote:

Hello,

Some time ago, I presented [1] a ballot proposal on improving the requirements for the Registration Number value in the EVGs. Here is the current proposal:  <https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/compare/main...CBonnell:servercert:govt-entity-serial-number> https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/compare/main...CBonnell:servercert:govt-entity-serial-number.

On the call where the proposal was presented, there was a desire to explore standardizing date formats for the Date of Formation. Is this something that we would like to see added to the ballot? For the sake of minimizing scope of the ballot, I’m in favor of moving forward without such a requirement, but will certainly be happy to incorporate if there are strong feelings that such a requirement should be added in this ballot.

Thanks,

Corey

[1]  <https://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/2024-July/001997.html> https://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/2024-July/001997.html

_______________________________________________
Validation mailing list
 <mailto:Validation at cabforum.org> Validation at cabforum.org
 <https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/validation> https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/validation

_______________________________________________
Validation mailing list
Validation at cabforum.org <mailto:Validation at cabforum.org> 
https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/validation

_______________________________________________
Validation mailing list
Validation at cabforum.org <mailto:Validation at cabforum.org> 
https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/validation

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/attachments/20240827/bbfed000/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5231 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/attachments/20240827/bbfed000/attachment-0001.p7s>