<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Exchange Server">
<!-- converted from rtf -->
<style><!-- .EmailQuote { margin-left: 1pt; padding-left: 4pt; border-left: #800000 2px solid; } --></style>
</head>
<body>
<font face="Calibri, sans-serif" size="2">
<div>While looking over the EV Code Signing Guidelines (<a href="https://cabforum.org/EV_Code_Signing_Guidelines_v1_1.pdf"><font color="#0000FF"><u>https://cabforum.org/EV_Code_Signing_Guidelines_v1_1.pdf</u></font></a>), I came across what I think is a typo.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>“9.2.2 Subject Alternative Name Extension</div>
<div>This field should not be included in the EV Code Signing Objects.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Section 9.2 is all about Subject DN fields, so it seems a bit odd that 9.2.2 should be about an extension. But as Section 9.7 says “the Certificate MUST include a SubjectAltName:permanentIdentifier”. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>I think 9.2.2 is there because it was copied from the EV SSL Guidelines. In that document, we explicitly call out subjectAltName in the Subject DN section to call attention to the fact that we’re deprecating the Common Name field, and want the subject’s
name instead put in the subjectAltName extension.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I think the way to correct this is to remove Section 9.2.2 (it just consists of the one sentence shown above).</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Anyone disagree? Should I create a ballot for this?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>-Rick</div>
<div> </div>
</font>
</body>
</html>