<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div dir="auto" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class="">Dimitris,</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Thank you for working on this. The lack of clarity with regards to “Root CA” and “Subordinate CA” is one that needs resolving to ensure all have a common understanding of what it expected of them.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I also appreciate the objective to change as little as possible to get this clarity. As Ryan Sleevi pointed out yesterday, this is a complex issue as a single organization can have multiple CPSes and a single key pair can be used for multiple DNs and there can be multiple CA certificate with the same subject.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I think we may need to reconsider whether the majority of cases can be considered to be the Key Pair + Distinguished Name case and make the organization case the outlier.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Thanks,</div><div class="">Peter</div><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Oct 19, 2016, at 5:20 AM, Dimitris Zacharopoulos via Public <<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org" class="">public@cabforum.org</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class="">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" class="">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" class="">
<br class="">
After working this topic for quite some time in the Policy Review
WG, we consider it ready to be discussed on the public list and we
encourage members to provide feedback and comments. Here is some
information about the attached document:<br class="">
<ol class="">
<li class="">It is based on the BRs version 1.3.7. We didn't always update
to the latest version because these changes are quite basic and
could be implemented on any latest version of the BRs.</li>
<li class="">At first (almost 6 months back), it was decided that minimal
changes should take place which would make a revision ballot
more easily adopted by the forum. Now, with the new process that
requires longer time for review/adoption than before (for IPR
issues), we decided that we should also provide clarity on the
"signing" operations. So, you will see a more technically
accurate language that replaces the concept of a Certificate
being "signed by a CA Certificate". The language now includes
Keys associated with specific Certification Authority
Certificates.</li>
<li class="">This red-lined document does not attempt to solve all
problematic language in the BRs but only the usage of the term
"CA" and Keys associated with CA Certificates. Other
clarifications for other terms will be addressed in the future.<br class="">
</li>
<li class="">We believe that this version, to the best of our knowledge,
uses the term "CA", "Root CA", "Root Certificate" and
"Subordinate CA Certificate" consistently. If you spot an
ambiguity we missed, please let us know.<br class="">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> </div>
</li>
</ol>
We don't need to wait for the re-adoption process of the BRs and EV
guidelines in order to discuss this amendment. We hope to complete
this discussion process, prepare a proper ballot and once the
re-adoption is complete, we can officially submit it for review.<br class="">
<br class="">
You may find for more information and comments on the Policy Review
WG mailing <a href="https://cabforum.org/pipermail/policyreview/" class="">archive</a>.
<a href="https://cabforum.org/pipermail/policyreview/2016-October/000341html" class="">Here
</a>is the latest message on this topic. You are also welcome to
comment during slot #6 (Working Group reports) at the F2F.<br class="">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> <br class="">
<br class="">
Best regards,<br class="">
Dimitris Zacharopoulos.</div>
</div>
<span id="cid:102627A0-1D34-43D7-9F57-AD86BDDAAB76@amazon.com"><BR 1.3.7-with-comments-regarding-CA-subCA-intermediateCA v5.docx></span>_______________________________________________<br class="">Public mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:Public@cabforum.org" class="">Public@cabforum.org</a><br class="">https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public<br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></body></html>