<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
    <p><font face="Calibri">Ryan,</font></p>
    <p><font face="Calibri">It just seems to me - but maybe I am wrong -
        that the current text is not sufficiently clear. <br>
      </font></p>
    <font face="Calibri">Generally speaking, I find that §14.2 is not
      clear enough as to what en Enterprise RA can do and what they
      cannot do, within the overall EV certificate request, validation
      and issuance procedure.<br>
    </font>
    <p><font face="Calibri">My understanding is the following:</font></p>
    <p><font face="Calibri">1) An Enterprise RA can request and obtain
        certificates in full autonomy and with one person only, through
        interaction with the CA services, _limited to those domains they
        own or control_. <br>
      </font></p>
    <p><font face="Calibri">Here, "</font><font face="Calibri"><font
          face="Calibri">in full autonomy</font>" follows from §14.2.1
        ("The CA MAY delegate the performance of all or any part of a
        requirement of these Guidelines to an Affiliate or a
        Registration Authority (RA) ...") and "with one person only"
        follows from §14.2.2 point 4 ("The Final Cross-Correlation and
        Due Diligence requirements of Section 11.13 of these Guidelines
        MAY be performed by a single person representing the Enterprise
        RA;").<br>
      </font></p>
    <p><font face="Calibri">2) However, the above possibility is only
        allowed after the subject organization, to be enabled as an </font><font
        face="Calibri">Enterprise RA, has been issued at least one EV
        certificate (so-called "original EV certificate") directly by
        the CA. <br>
      </font></p>
    <p><font face="Calibri">Do I understand correctly?</font><font
        face="Calibri"> If so, this implies that - if a subject
        organization is already enabled as an </font><font
        face="Calibri">Enterprise RA for OV certs at the time when they
        ask for their first EV cert - they cannot (be allowed to)
        leverage their </font><font face="Calibri">enablement as an </font><font
        face="Calibri">Enterprise RA in order to obtain their first EV
        cert. In other words, the </font><font face="Calibri"><font
          face="Calibri">Enterprise RA must not be involved in the
          procedure for request/validation/issuance of the </font></font><font
        face="Calibri"><font face="Calibri"><font face="Calibri">"original
            EV certificate"</font>. </font>Is this what's really meant
        by the EVGLs ?</font></p>
    <p><font face="Calibri">3) At any rate, even under the conditions
        above, once a subject </font><font face="Calibri">organization
        has been enabled as an </font><font face="Calibri">Enterprise
        RA for EV cert, they can only obtain EV certs for sub-domains of
        the SLDN contained in their first EV certficate. <br>
      </font></p>
    <p><font face="Calibri">Why so? Why cannot the </font><font
        face="Calibri">Enterprise RA, at this point, obtain further EV
        certs for just any domain (esp. SLDN) they own or control? But
        if this is actually allowed, than it's certainly not clear in
        the EVGLs. </font></p>
    Adriano<br>
    <p><br>
    </p>
    <p><br>
    </p>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">Il 24/08/2016 18:59, Ryan Sleevi ha
      scritto:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote
cite="mid:CACvaWvZnQBoN1-xg64rhx_wMAgGHdRzV92SO_4ajTxnsxfD9Xg@mail.gmail.com"
      type="cite">
      <div dir="ltr">Adriano,
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div>It might be useful if you could explain more why you
          believe the text disagrees with Kirk, Peter and I. The goal is
          not to leave these things up to interpretation, and so if you
          believe a plain reading of the text supports an alternative
          understanding different from what we said, understanding why
          you believe that will be quite important.</div>
      </div>
      <div class="gmail_extra"><br>
        <div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 2:44 AM,
          Adriano Santoni <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
              href="mailto:adriano.santoni@staff.aruba.it"
              target="_blank">adriano.santoni@staff.aruba.it</a>></span>
          wrote:<br>
          <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
            .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
            <div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
              <p><font face="Calibri">Kirk,</font></p>
              <p><font face="Calibri">thank you for your contribute. <br>
                </font></p>
              <p><font face="Calibri">If the "correct interpretation" of
                  the EVGL is actually the one you give below, than it
                  makes sense. <br>
                </font></p>
              <p><font face="Calibri">But I see that even you are
                  expressing some uncertanty (</font><font
                  face="Calibri"><font face="Calibri">"looks like"...
                    "in my opinion" </font>...) so I really would like
                  to understand whether your interpretation is shared by
                  most CA members, as I hope. <br>
                </font></p>
              <p><font face="Calibri">If your intepretation is correct,
                  I think that the EVGLs are worth improving, for better
                  clarity.<br>
                </font></p>
              <p><font face="Calibri">On the other hand, the notion that
                  an Enterprise RA can only authorize issuance of EV
                  certs for sub-domains seems weird to me. <br>
                  I wonder how many EV certificates exist for subdomains
                  of a company's main domain.... I suppose not many?<span
                    class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
                    </font></span></font></p>
              <span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
                  <p><font face="Calibri">Adriano</font></p>
                </font></span>
              <div>
                <div class="h5">
                  <p><br>
                  </p>
                  <br>
                  <div class="m_1320822918363162957moz-cite-prefix">Il
                    17/08/2016 18:56, Kirk Hall ha scritto:<br>
                  </div>
                  <blockquote type="cite">
                    <div class="m_1320822918363162957WordSection1">
                      <p class="m_1320822918363162957MsoPlainText">Adriano,
                        I may not be understanding your original
                        question -- but here is another possible answer.</p>
                      <p class="m_1320822918363162957MsoPlainText"> </p>
                      <p class="m_1320822918363162957MsoPlainText">If
                        Company A applies for an EV cert for <a
                          moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://foo.com"
                          target="_blank">foo.com</a>, the CA will do an
                        EV vetting for the <u>organization</u> (Company
                        A) and then for the <u>domain</u> (<a
                          moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://foo.com"
                          target="_blank">foo.com</a>).  Under EVGL
                        14.2, it looks like Company A can then ask to be
                        designated as an Enterprise RA - but only for
                        the confirmed domain <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                          href="http://foo.com" target="_blank">foo.com</a>
                        -- and then get certs for third level and higher
                        domains that end in <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                          href="http://foo.com" target="_blank">foo.com</a>. 
                        But Company A has not proven ownership or
                        control of any other domains, such as <a
                          moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://bar.com"
                          target="_blank">bar.com</a>, so is not an
                        Enterprise RA for any other domains.</p>
                      <p class="m_1320822918363162957MsoPlainText"> </p>
                      <p class="m_1320822918363162957MsoPlainText">Now
                        suppose Company A comes back to the RA and asks
                        for a cert for <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                          href="http://bar.com" target="_blank">bar.com</a>. 
                        In my opinion, the CA is not required to re-do
                        EV <u>organization</u> validation for Company A
                        again -- it can rely on the earlier EV
                        organization validation (for the full 13 month
                        period), so long as the CA is certain it is
                        really dealing with Company A.  But it must do
                        EV validation of <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                          href="http://bar.com" target="_blank">bar.com</a>
                        to prove it is owned or controlled by Company
                        A.  Once that has been done, Company A could ask
                        to be designated as an Enterprise RA for <a
                          moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://bar.com"
                          target="_blank">bar.com</a> also.  But there
                        is no real connection between the status of <a
                          moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://foo.com"
                          target="_blank">foo.com</a> versus <a
                          moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://bar.com"
                          target="_blank">bar.com</a>, other than
                        Company A may only have to go through a single
                        EV <u>organization</u> vetting.</p>
                      <p class="m_1320822918363162957MsoPlainText"> </p>
                      <p class="m_1320822918363162957MsoPlainText">Is
                        that responsive to your original question?</p>
                      <p class="m_1320822918363162957MsoPlainText"> </p>
                      <p class="m_1320822918363162957MsoPlainText">-----Original
                        Message-----<br>
                        From: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                          class="m_1320822918363162957moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
                          href="mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org"
                          target="_blank">public-bounces@cabforum.org</a>
                        [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
                          class="m_1320822918363162957moz-txt-link-freetext"
                          href="mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org"
                          target="_blank">mailto:public-bounces@<wbr>cabforum.org</a>]
                        On Behalf Of Peter Bowen<br>
                        Sent: Friday, August 5, 2016 9:19 AM<br>
                        To: Adriano Santoni <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                          class="m_1320822918363162957moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
                          href="mailto:adriano.santoni@staff.aruba.it"
                          target="_blank"><adriano.santoni@staff.aruba.<wbr>it></a><br>
                        Cc: CABFPub <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                          class="m_1320822918363162957moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
                          href="mailto:public@cabforum.org"
                          target="_blank"><public@cabforum.org></a><br>
                        Subject: Re: [cabfpub] EV Guidelines §14.2
                        delegation of functions to RAs etc.</p>
                      <p class="m_1320822918363162957MsoPlainText"> </p>
                      <p class="m_1320822918363162957MsoPlainText">I
                        don’t think this is a very high bar.  It would
                        seem the following process would work:</p>
                      <p class="m_1320822918363162957MsoPlainText"> </p>
                      <p class="m_1320822918363162957MsoPlainText">1)
                        Customer requests EV Enterprise RA privileges
                        for <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                          href="http://example.com" target="_blank">example.com</a>,
                        <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                          href="http://example.net" target="_blank">example.net</a>,
                        <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                          href="http://corp.example.org" target="_blank">corp.example.org</a>,
                        <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                          href="http://example.biz" target="_blank">example.biz</a>,
                        …</p>
                      <p class="m_1320822918363162957MsoPlainText"> </p>
                      <p class="m_1320822918363162957MsoPlainText">2) CA
                        follows EV issuance procedures and issues a
                        single EV certificate that has all the base
                        domains in it.  This certificate could have a
                        CA-defined critical extension marking it an
                        “Enterprise RA EV” certificate or some such to
                        prevent it from being used on a server.  I think
                        it could even have CA-generated key pair where
                        the CA simply threw away the private key after
                        generation.  </p>
                      <p class="m_1320822918363162957MsoPlainText"> </p>
                      <p class="m_1320822918363162957MsoPlainText">3) If
                        the customer wants new domains, the CA issues a
                        new “Enterprise RA EV” certificate using the
                        same process.  There does not appear to be a
                        requirement that all domains be in a single
                        certificate, so it could just be the new
                        domains.</p>
                      <p class="m_1320822918363162957MsoPlainText"> </p>
                      <p class="m_1320822918363162957MsoPlainText">I
                        think this would meet all the requirements that
                        are set out.</p>
                      <p class="m_1320822918363162957MsoPlainText"> </p>
                      <p class="m_1320822918363162957MsoPlainText">Thanks,</p>
                      <p class="m_1320822918363162957MsoPlainText">Peter</p>
                      <p class="m_1320822918363162957MsoPlainText"> </p>
                      <p class="m_1320822918363162957MsoPlainText">>
                        On Aug 4, 2016, at 11:58 PM, Adriano Santoni
                        <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
                          href="mailto:adriano.santoni@staff.aruba.it"
                          target="_blank"><span
                            style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">adriano.santoni@staff.aruba.<wbr>it</span></a>>
                        wrote:</p>
                      <p class="m_1320822918363162957MsoPlainText">>
                      </p>
                      <p class="m_1320822918363162957MsoPlainText">>
                        Ok,. but what is (was) the ratio for that
                        constraint?</p>
                      <p class="m_1320822918363162957MsoPlainText">>
                      </p>
                      <p class="m_1320822918363162957MsoPlainText">>
                        Assume the following:</p>
                      <p class="m_1320822918363162957MsoPlainText">>
                      </p>
                      <p class="m_1320822918363162957MsoPlainText">>
                        1) A certain company (say "ACME Corp")
                        owns/controls several 2nd level domains (two or
                        more).</p>
                      <p class="m_1320822918363162957MsoPlainText">>
                      </p>
                      <p class="m_1320822918363162957MsoPlainText">>
                        2) That company wants EV certificates, from a
                        certain CA, for two or more of those domains, or
                        possibly all of them.</p>
                      <p class="m_1320822918363162957MsoPlainText">>
                      </p>
                      <p class="m_1320822918363162957MsoPlainText">>
                        3) The same company would like to be authorized
                        as an Enterprise RA by the said CA.</p>
                      <p class="m_1320822918363162957MsoPlainText">>
                      </p>
                      <p class="m_1320822918363162957MsoPlainText">>
                        Now assume that the said CA, first of all,
                        verifies (with _positive result_) that *all* of
                        those domains are actually owned/controlled by
                        ACME.</p>
                      <p class="m_1320822918363162957MsoPlainText">>
                      </p>
                      <p class="m_1320822918363162957MsoPlainText">>
                        Next, the CA verifies that all requirements for
                        issuing the first EV certificate (for any one of
                        those domains) are met, and therefore issues the
                        first EV certificate.</p>
                      <p class="m_1320822918363162957MsoPlainText">>
                      </p>
                      <p class="m_1320822918363162957MsoPlainText">>
                        At this point, why should ACME not be allowed to
                        act as an Enterprise RA and thus obtain by
                        themselves (in compliance with all applicable
                        reqs. for Enterprise RAs) the desired EV
                        certificates for the remaining 2nd level domains
                        ? </p>
                      <p class="m_1320822918363162957MsoPlainText">>
                      </p>
                      <p class="m_1320822918363162957MsoPlainText">>
                        What would be the implied risk of allowing that?</p>
                      <p class="m_1320822918363162957MsoPlainText">>
                        Adriano</p>
                      <p class="m_1320822918363162957MsoPlainText">>
                      </p>
                      <p class="m_1320822918363162957MsoPlainText">>
                      </p>
                      <p class="m_1320822918363162957MsoPlainText">>
                      </p>
                      <p class="m_1320822918363162957MsoPlainText">>
                        Il 04/08/2016 23:24, Ryan Sleevi ha scritto:</p>
                      <p class="m_1320822918363162957MsoPlainText">>>
                        You're saying the original certificate is
                        xxx.example, and the new certificate is for
                        xxx.example and yyy.example?</p>
                      <p class="m_1320822918363162957MsoPlainText">>>
                      </p>
                      <p class="m_1320822918363162957MsoPlainText">>>
                        No, it would not be appropriate, because
                        yyy.example was not "contained within the domain
                        of the original EV certificate"</p>
                      <p class="m_1320822918363162957MsoPlainText">>>
                      </p>
                      <p class="m_1320822918363162957MsoPlainText">>>
                        On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 6:19 AM, Adriano Santoni
                        <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
                          href="mailto:adriano.santoni@staff.aruba.it"
                          target="_blank"><span
                            style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">adriano.santoni@staff.aruba.<wbr>it</span></a>>
                        wrote:</p>
                      <p class="m_1320822918363162957MsoPlainText">>>
                        All,</p>
                      <p class="m_1320822918363162957MsoPlainText">>>
                      </p>
                      <p class="m_1320822918363162957MsoPlainText">>>
                        I have a doubt regarding §14.2 of EV guidelines,
                        and particularly §14.2.2 (Enterprise RAs) that
                        reads: </p>
                      <p class="m_1320822918363162957MsoPlainText">>>
                      </p>
                      <p class="m_1320822918363162957MsoPlainText">>>
                        "The CA MAY contractually authorize the Subject
                        of a specified Valid EV Certificate to perform
                        the RA function and authorize the CA to issue
                        additional EV Certificates at third and higher
                        domain levels that are contained within the
                        domain of the original EV Certificate (also
                        known as an Enterprise EV Certificate). In such
                        case, the Subject SHALL be considered an
                        Enterprise RA, and the following requirements
                        SHALL apply: ..."</p>
                      <p class="m_1320822918363162957MsoPlainText">>>
                        Now, let's assume that a certain company
                        owns/controls two or more domains, say <a
                          moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://xxx.com"
                          target="_blank">xxx.com</a> and <a
                          moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://yyy.net"
                          target="_blank">yyy.net</a>, and that the
                        "original EV Certificate" (quoted from above)
                        was issued by the CA for any one of those
                        domains (say <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                          href="http://xxx.com" target="_blank">xxx.com</a>):
                        under these conditions, would it be okay to
                        authorize that company to act as an Enterprise
                        RA for the remaining 2nd-level domains that it
                        owns/controls ?</p>
                      <p class="m_1320822918363162957MsoPlainText">>>
                      </p>
                      <p class="m_1320822918363162957MsoPlainText">>>
                        Based on §14.2.2, it seems not.</p>
                      <p class="m_1320822918363162957MsoPlainText">>>
                      </p>
                      <p class="m_1320822918363162957MsoPlainText">>>
                        Adriano</p>
                      <p class="m_1320822918363162957MsoPlainText">>>
                      </p>
                      <p class="m_1320822918363162957MsoPlainText">>>
                      </p>
                      <p class="m_1320822918363162957MsoPlainText">>>
                        ______________________________<wbr>_________________</p>
                      <p class="m_1320822918363162957MsoPlainText">>>
                        Public mailing list</p>
                      <p class="m_1320822918363162957MsoPlainText">>>
                        <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                          href="mailto:Public@cabforum.org"
                          target="_blank"><span
                            style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">Public@cabforum.org</span></a></p>
                      <p class="m_1320822918363162957MsoPlainText">>>
                        <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                          href="https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public"
                          target="_blank"> <span
                            style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">https://cabforum.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/public</span></a></p>
                      <p class="m_1320822918363162957MsoPlainText">>>
                      </p>
                      <p class="m_1320822918363162957MsoPlainText">>>
                      </p>
                      <p class="m_1320822918363162957MsoPlainText">>
                      </p>
                      <p class="m_1320822918363162957MsoPlainText">>
                        -- </p>
                      <p class="m_1320822918363162957MsoPlainText">>
                        Cordiali saluti,</p>
                      <p class="m_1320822918363162957MsoPlainText">>
                      </p>
                      <p class="m_1320822918363162957MsoPlainText">>
                        Adriano Santoni</p>
                      <p class="m_1320822918363162957MsoPlainText">>
                        ACTALIS S.p.A.</p>
                      <p class="m_1320822918363162957MsoPlainText">>
                        (Aruba Group)</p>
                      <p class="m_1320822918363162957MsoPlainText">>
                      </p>
                      <p class="m_1320822918363162957MsoPlainText">>
                        ______________________________<wbr>_________________</p>
                      <p class="m_1320822918363162957MsoPlainText">>
                        Public mailing list</p>
                      <p class="m_1320822918363162957MsoPlainText">>
                        <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                          href="mailto:Public@cabforum.org"
                          target="_blank"><span
                            style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">Public@cabforum.org</span></a></p>
                      <p class="m_1320822918363162957MsoPlainText">>
                        <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                          href="https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public"
                          target="_blank"> <span
                            style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">https://cabforum.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/public</span></a></p>
                      <p class="m_1320822918363162957MsoPlainText"> </p>
                      <p class="m_1320822918363162957MsoPlainText">______________________________<wbr>_________________</p>
                      <p class="m_1320822918363162957MsoPlainText">Public
                        mailing list</p>
                      <p class="m_1320822918363162957MsoPlainText"><a
                          moz-do-not-send="true"
                          href="mailto:Public@cabforum.org"
                          target="_blank"><span
                            style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">Public@cabforum.org</span></a></p>
                      <p class="m_1320822918363162957MsoPlainText"><a
                          moz-do-not-send="true"
                          href="https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public"
                          target="_blank"><span
                            style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">https://cabforum.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/public</span></a></p>
                    </div>
                  </blockquote>
                  <br>
                  <div class="m_1320822918363162957moz-signature">-- <br>
                    <p style="font-family:Serif"> Cordiali saluti,<br>
                      <br>
                      Adriano Santoni<br>
                      ACTALIS S.p.A.<br>
                      (Aruba Group)</p>
                  </div>
                </div>
              </div>
            </div>
            <br>
            ______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
            Public mailing list<br>
            <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:Public@cabforum.org">Public@cabforum.org</a><br>
            <a moz-do-not-send="true"
              href="https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public"
              rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://cabforum.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/public</a><br>
            <br>
          </blockquote>
        </div>
        <br>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    <div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
      <p style="font-family: Serif">
        Cordiali saluti,<br>
        <br>
        Adriano Santoni<br>
        ACTALIS S.p.A.<br>
        (Aruba Group)</p>
    </div>
  </body>
</html>