<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"></head><body ><div>Maybe I'm wrong but the voting is to fix something that it's nota quite right not a discussion of wether this is according to the bylaws or similar. </div><div>The document already exists before this ballot so don't get this issue. </div><div><br></div><div>Otoh i don't see a (potential) problem that this is supported by one browser and 2 CAs. I think Izenpe is not one of those. As usual at the beginning of any "standard " this is not acepted by everybody, usually takes time. </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><div style="font-size:75%;color:#575757">Enviado de Samsung Mobile</div></div> <br><br><br>-------- Mensaje original --------<br>De: "Moudrick M. Dadashov" <md@ssc.lt> <br>Fecha: <br>Para: Rob Stradling <rob.stradling@comodo.com>,ben@digicert.com,public@cabforum.org <br>Asunto: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 117 - EV Code Signing Guidelines Corrections <br> <br><br>Hi,<br><br>I think Rob's comment raises potentially problematic practice.<br><br>I'm not sure about the voting procedure, but I'd suggest we find some <br>ways to discuss these issues before the end of voting period.<br><br>Is this possible?<br><br>Thanks,<br>M.D.<br><br><br>On 3/21/2014 4:40 PM, Rob Stradling wrote:<br>> Comodo votes "no".<br>><br>> Comodo strongly supports the concept of EV Code Signing, and would very<br>> much like to see wider implementation and participation. However, as<br>> far as we are aware, EV Code Signing has been implemented by only a<br>> single vendor with only two CA participants in that vendor's program.<br>> Therefore, as Section 1.2 of the Bylaws of the CA/B Forum states that<br>> the purpose of the Forum is to meet and discuss matters of common<br>> interest, we do not believe the EV Code Signing Guidelines to be a<br>> matter of common interest for the Forum at this time. Specifically,<br>> absent wider implementation and participation in the use of this<br>> standard, additional work now by the CA/B Forum on this topic will be in<br>> contravention of Section 1.2 of the Bylaws.<br>><br>> Moreover, Section 1.3 of the Bylaws of the CA/B Forum states that Forum<br>> Members shall not use their participation in the Forum either to promote<br>> their own products and offerings or to restrict or impede the products<br>> and offerings of other Members. Given the current level of<br>> implementation and participation in EV Code Signing, Comodo currently<br>> cannot vote in favour of Ballot 117, because agreements, understandings,<br>> or protocols reached in the context of standard setting efforts may<br>> violate antitrust laws if the effective result of such efforts is to<br>> restrain competition.<br>><br>> On 10/03/14 16:24, Ben Wilson wrote:<br>>> Ballot 117 - EV Code Signing Guidelines Corrections<br>>><br>>> Jeremy Rowley of DigiCert made the following motion, and Iñigo Barreira<br>>> of Izenpe and Rick Andrews of Symantec endorsed it.<br>>><br>>> There are two issues with the EV code signing guidelines that need<br>>> correction:<br>>><br>>> 1. Section 9.2.2 of the EV code signing guidelines recommends that CAs<br>>> not include the SAN extension in an EV certificate. However, section<br>>> 9.7 requires that an EV certificate include<br>>> subjectAltName:permanentIdentifier. Because the main concern is that a<br>>> CA might include a domain name in the SAN extension, we should specify<br>>> that this practice is not allowed and recognize that other information<br>>> may be present.<br>>><br>>> 2. Because the EV Code Signing Guidelines were originally based on the<br>>> EV Guidelines for SSL, Section 9.2.3 of the EV code signing guidelines<br>>> deprecates the CN field. However, the CABF Code Signing Working Group<br>>> received a report that this field is still required by code signing<br>>> applications. We should still include the CN in code signing<br>>> certificates for the Subscriber’s legal name, even though the field is<br>>> deprecated for use in SSL/TLS certificates.<br>>><br>>> ---Motion Begins---<br>>><br>>> Effective immediately:<br>>><br>>> a. Replace section 9.2.2 with the following:<br>>><br>>> “9.2.2 Subject Alternative Name Extension<br>>><br>>> This field MUST be present and MUST contain the permanentIdentifier<br>>> specified in Section 9.7. This field MUST NOT contain a Domain Name or<br>>> IP Address.”<br>>><br>>> b. Amend section 9.2.3 as follows:<br>>><br>>> “9.2.2 Subject Common Name Field<br>>><br>>> Certificate field: subject:commonName (OID 2.5.4.3)<br>>><br>>> Required/Optional: Required<br>>><br>>> Contents: This field MUST contain the Subject’s legal name as verified<br>>> under Section 11.2.“<br>>><br>>> ---Motion ends---<br>>><br>>> Motion Ends<br>>><br>>> The review period for this ballot shall commence at 2200 UTC on Monday,<br>>> 10 March 2014, and will close at 2200 UTC on Monday, 17 March 2014.<br>>><br>>> Unless the motion is withdrawn during the review period, the voting<br>>> period will start immediately thereafter and will close at 2200 UTC on<br>>> Monday, 24 March 2014.<br>>><br>>> Votes must be cast by posting an on-list reply to this thread.<br>>><br>>> A vote in favor of the motion must indicate a clear 'yes' in the response.<br>>><br>>> A vote against must indicate a clear 'no' in the response.<br>>><br>>> A vote to abstain must indicate a clear 'abstain' in the response.<br>>> Unclear responses will not be counted.<br>>><br>>> The latest vote received from any representative of a voting member<br>>> before the close of the voting period will be counted.<br>>><br>>> Voting members are listed here: https://cabforum.org/members/<br>>><br>>> In order for the motion to be adopted, two thirds or more of the votes<br>>> cast by members in the CA category and more than one half of the votes<br>>> cast by members in the browser category must be in favor.<br>>><br>>> Quorum is currently six (6) members– at least six members must<br>>> participate in the ballot, either by voting in favor, voting against, or<br>>> by abstaining for the vote to be valid.<br><br><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>Public mailing list<br>Public@cabforum.org<br>https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public<br></body>