<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p><span style='color:#1F497D'>On Aug 25, 2014, <o:p></o:p></span></p><p><span style='color:#1F497D'>Ben W. said, “if the CA gives the applicant a code that they need to put in the TXT record, and that happens,” and <o:p></o:p></span></p><p><span style='color:#1F497D'>Ryan S. replied, “I think a CA-generated code with the DNS admin placing it is equivalent to mechanisms 1-6 for control demonstration purposes”. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p><span style='color:#1F497D'>I think we ought to allow this as another method of confirming domain control for purposes of EV.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p><span style='color:#1F497D'>What do others think? Even though this would be added to section 11.1.1 of the BRs, it currently is an EV issue because of the wording in EVG 11.6.1(1), so would this be something to add to the EV Working Group’s issues list? If so, I’ll move this discussion over to the EV Working Group. Also, if you are interested in word-smithing a ballot proposal, let me know. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p><span style='color:#1F497D'>Thanks,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p><span style='color:#1F497D'>Ben<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></body></html>