<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:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@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:TimesNewRomanPSMT;
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
/* 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.apple-converted-space
{mso-style-name:apple-converted-space;}
span.EmailStyle18
{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]-->
</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">Erwann, you are correct that we need to change EVGL 11.7.1, and at different times the Validation Working Group discussed that. But it never made it into Ballot 169.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">The intention was that after we removed the “any other method” of old BR 3.2.2.4 (which we did by Ballot 169), then all of the domain validation methods could be used for EV
certificates, including methods (7) through (10). So I think the better correction of EVGL 11.7.1(1) would be simply to remove the words “***,
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">except that a CA MAY NOT verify a domain using the procedure described subsection 3.2.2.4(7)”. We may need to make other modifications as well. I think this issue should go back to the
(revived) Validation Working Group.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Here is how the amended EVGL 11.7.1(1) would read:</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><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" style="margin-left:.5in;text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT">EVGL 11.7.1(1) For each Fully-Qualified Domain Name listed in a Certificate, other than a Domain Name with .onion in the rightmost
label of the Domain Name, the CA SHALL confirm that, as of the date the Certificate was issued, the Applicant (or the Applicant’s Parent Company, Subsidiary Company, or Affiliate, collectively referred to as “Applicant” for the purposes of this section) either
is the Domain Name Registrant or has control over the FQDN using a procedure specified in Section 3.2.2.4 of the Baseline Requirements<s>, except that a CA MAY NOT verify a domain using the procedure described subsection 3.2.2.4(7)</s>. For a Certificate issued
to a Domain Name with .onion in the right-most label of the Domain Name, the CA SHALL confirm that, as of the date the Certificate was issued, the Applicant’s control over the .onion Domain Name in accordance with Appendix F.</span><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"><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><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>Erwann Abalea<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, September 19, 2016 7:05 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Robin Alden <robin@comodo.com>; CABFPub <public@cabforum.org><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 169 problem report<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Bonjour, <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">The modification of section 3.2.2.4 has consequences on EVG section 11.7.1.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">EVG section 11.7.1 says:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-left:30.0pt;margin-right:0in">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">(1) […] using a procedure specified in Section 3.2.2.4 of the Baseline Requirements, except that a CA MAY NOT verify a domain using the procedure described subsection 3.2.2.4(7). […]<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Due to this rewriting of BR 3.2.2.4, I guess this Section 11.7.1 of EVG should be changed to:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-left:30.0pt;margin-right:0in">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">« […] a CA MAY NOT verify a domain using the procedures described subsection 3.2.2.4.7, 3.2.2.4.8, 3.2.2.4.9, and 3.2.2.4.10. »<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Cordialement,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Erwann Abalea<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Le 7 sept. 2016 à 15:37, Robin Alden <<a href="mailto:robin@comodo.com">robin@comodo.com</a>> a écrit :<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Ballot 169 – “Revised Validation Requirements” introduced text into section 3.2.2.4 which refers to section 3.3.1.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">“3.2.2.4<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">…<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Completed confirmations of Applicant authority may be valid for the issuance of multiple certificates over time. In all cases, the confirmation must have been initiated within
the time period specified in the relevant requirement (<span style="background:yellow">such as Section 3.3.1 of this document</span>) prior to certificate issuance. For purposes of domain validation, the term Applicant includes the Applicant's Parent Company,
Subsidiary Company, or Affiliate.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">…“<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Section 3.3.1 of the BRs now consists only of the section heading, with no body text.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">“3.3.1. Identification and Authentication for Routine Re‐key”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">The text which was at 3.3.1 in the guidelines when we started working on what became ballot 169 read:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div style="margin-left:.5in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Section 6.3.2 limits the validity period of Subscriber Certificates. The CA MAY use the documents and data<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div style="margin-left:.5in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">provided in Section 3.2 to verify certificate information, provided that the CA obtained the data or document<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div style="margin-left:.5in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">from a source specified under Section 3.2 no more than thirty‐nine (39) months prior to issuing the<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div style="margin-left:.5in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Certificate.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">(taken from version 1.3.0 of the BRs)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">That text now appears as the third paragraph of 4.2.1 (Performing Identification and Authentication Functions)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Should we move that text back into 3.3.1, or should we change 3.2.2.4 so that the reference points to 4.2.1 instead of pointing to 3.3.1?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Regards<br>
Robin Alden<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Comodo<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">_______________________________________________<br>
Public mailing list<br>
</span><a href="mailto:Public@cabforum.org"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#954F72">Public@cabforum.org</span></a><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif"><br>
</span><a href="https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#954F72">https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>