<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>+1, one BR is great.</div><div>If CA want to issue EV, then must comply with term xx that just add some term to BR.</div><div>And I wish the SSL will left EV and DV only, there are no any advantage for OV now if EV wildcard is allowed.<br><br>Regards,<div><br></div><div>Richard</div></div><div><br>On Aug 31, 2015, at 23:15, Doug Beattie <<a href="mailto:doug.beattie@globalsign.com">doug.beattie@globalsign.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><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;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@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]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">I’d prefer combining them into one document based on what I know now. I think it will be hard to read and follow a document that contains a lot of references to another document, and each time a change is made
to the BR document we’ll need to ask ourselves how this impacts EV (if that section is used or not).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Also, many of the sections will be close, but not 100% identical to the BRs which will mean duplicating that section and then trying to keep the common items in-sync. For example the Certificate Warranties:
many are the same, some are different. Wouldn’t it be better to have this in a table with the list of all warrantees and then indicate which apply to OV/DV vs. EV? This also lets you clearly see the differences between the different types of certificates.
This same approach could be used in lots of places throughout.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">It’s also possible that once we start merging it some hard to solve issues will arise…. I support investigating what it would take to merge it in and to identify what obstacles we might encounter.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Doug<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="_MailEndCompose"><span style="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>From:</b> <a href="mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org">public-bounces@cabforum.org</a> [<a href="mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org">mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Tim Hollebeek<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, August 31, 2015 10:51 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Bruce Morton <<a href="mailto:bruce.morton@entrust.com">bruce.morton@entrust.com</a>>; Ben Wilson <<a href="mailto:ben.wilson@digicert.com">ben.wilson@digicert.com</a>>; CABFPub <<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org">public@cabforum.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [cabfpub] Merge EV Guidelines into Baseline Requirements CP?<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">I tend to agree with this. I’d prefer a separate document, even if much of it is “Section X: As in the baseline requirements”.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">-Tim<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">
<a href="mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org">public-bounces@cabforum.org</a> [<a href="mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org">mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Bruce Morton<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, August 31, 2015 10:17 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Ben Wilson; CABFPub<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [cabfpub] Merge EV Guidelines into Baseline Requirements CP?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Ben,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">I’m thinking that this will start to make it hard to understand what is EV and what is not. It might also be hard for the auditing community to mage their EV audit criteria.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Currently, we can align Baseline Requirements with a Baseline Requirements audit criteria; we can also do the same for EV. If we merge the two together can we still separate them for CAs which do not issue EV
certificates?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Bruce.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org">public-bounces@cabforum.org</a> [<a href="mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org">mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Ben Wilson<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, August 31, 2015 9:58 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> CABFPub <<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org">public@cabforum.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [cabfpub] Merge EV Guidelines into Baseline Requirements CP?<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">As I’ve looked at what is ahead of us (in the Policy Review Working Group), I have concluded that I’d prefer to put the EV Guidelines into the Baseline Requirements CP. The EV Guidelines would lose their identity as a separate document,
but if we merge the two, we can avoid a lot of back and forth between two documents because everything would be in one document. Other CPs have taken this approach of having multiple policies in the same CP document. Not sure what other people think, but
I thought I’d mention this idea here, in case it helps guide the WG as we review the EVG document in the upcoming weeks. (I did send out a rough draft of an RFC-3647-formatted EV Guidelines to the Policy Review Working Group to get us started.) If people
are amenable to merging the documents, then that might save us some work in the long run. Otherwise, we can move forward with editing of the RFC-3647 formatted version of the EV Guidelines as a separate document, which is fine, too.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">
<hr size="3" width="100%" align="center">
</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:gray"><br>
This transmission may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the information
contained herein (including any reliance thereon) is strictly prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please immediately contact the sender and destroy the material in its entirety, whether in electronic or hard copy format.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>Public mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:Public@cabforum.org">Public@cabforum.org</a></span><br><span><a href="https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public">https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public</a></span><br></div></blockquote></body></html>