<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;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.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="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72" style='word-wrap:break-word'><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>I agree that we should not permit completely unvalidated in in the certificates, but can we delegate the validation of these 3 fields to the Enterprise RA to not include “misleading” information (without requiring CA and Enterprise audits)? Mandating formal audits of this data is a no-go, imo. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b>From:</b> Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) <dzacharo@harica.gr> <br><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, March 10, 2022 7:59 AM<br><b>To:</b> Doug Beattie <doug.beattie@globalsign.com>; SMIME Certificate Working Group <smcwg-public@cabforum.org>; Henschel, Andreas <a.henschel@d-trust.net><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Smcwg-public] [EXTERNAL]-Re: Common Name contents<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>On 10/3/2022 2:22 μ.μ., Doug Beattie wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#548235'>If there are usecases that demand more, then let’s let them define those rules and policy OIDs to be used in the certificates on top of the profiles we’re defining here.</span><o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><br>I'm afraid I can't support that position. We have always had rules to include validated information in the certificates, even "any other method" that the CA deems appropriate. Even for the subject:organizationalUnitName field, there were rules describing what the CA MUST NOT allow. Allowing fields without any vetting whatsoever is not correct IMHO. It should not be considered "appropriate" from the CA because it is not performing any sort of validation!<br><br>BTW, I agree with the position to bring in use cases and define rules. The WG needs to be a bit more active in that regard because it is the only way that existing use cases will be discussed, analyzed and safe practices included in the SMBRs. However, until we have those use cases brought forward so that the WG can define rules, I believe we should not allow them.<br><br>Dimitris.<o:p></o:p></p></div></body></html>