<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 15 (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;}
span.EmailStyle17
{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 class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Hi Peter,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">I agree, section 9.2 of the EV guidelines needs to be updated as well, it’s confusing and inaccurate and will lead to other audit findings which can be avoided.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Doug<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></a></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt">
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> public-bounces@cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Ryan Sleevi<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, March 17, 2015 6:58 PM<br>
<b>Cc:</b> public@cabforum.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 148 - Issuer Field Correction<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Forwarding for Peter<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 2:56 PM, Peter Bowen <<a href="mailto:pzbowen@gmail.com" target="_blank">pzbowen@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<p class="MsoNormal">On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 4:28 PM, Doug Beattie<br>
<<a href="mailto:doug.beattie@globalsign.com">doug.beattie@globalsign.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> Ballot 148 - Issuer Field Correction<br>
><br>
> The issuer field language in Section 9.1 of the Baseline Requirements<br>
> confuses two issues:<br>
><br>
> 1) the contents of the issuer field in an end entity cert and<br>
><br>
> 2) how to name root and intermediate CA certificates.<br>
<br>
Maybe worth an independent discussion, but the EV Guidelines also<br>
claim to cover subordinate CA naming in section 9.2:<br>
<br>
"Subject to the requirements of these Guidelines, [...] certificates<br>
issued to Subordinate CAs that are not controlled by the same entity<br>
as the CA MUST include the following information about the Subject<br>
organization in the fields listed"<br>
<br>
The Subordinate CA definition is "A Certification Authority whose<br>
Certificate is signed by the Root CA, or another Subordinate CA."<br>
<br>
Looking at the Pilot CT log, there are zero CAs who have a<br>
businessCategory attribute in their name, yet businessCategory is a<br>
required attribute in section 9.2.<br>
<br>
Was 9.2 really intended to apply to Subordinate CAs? Is this just<br>
another thing waiting for an auditor to call out and start issuing<br>
qualifications?<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
Peter<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>