<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:34 AM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) <<a href="mailto:dzacharo@harica.gr">dzacharo@harica.gr</a>> wrote:</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div>
<div>On 24/11/2020 12:34 π.μ., Ryan Sleevi
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div> To use an example, if a CA were to define in its CP/CPS an
extension that follows exactly the description of the <em>cabfOrganizationIdentifier</em>
as described in section 9.8.2 of the EV Guidelines (my
previous example was flawed), describe the same EVG validation
rules for that extension and include this extension in an OV
Certificate, wouldn't that be compliant with the BRs?<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>No, not inherently. </div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I'm sorry for being confused with this response, I was expecting a
"yes" because for this example we have documented CABF agreed
validation rules, which should unambiguously meet all of BRs 7.1.2.4
requirements. Which part, in your opinion, doesn't fulfill the
7.1.2.4 section? I think it is important to understand this point
because if this example doesn't fulfill BRs 7.1.2.4 for custom
extensions, I don't know what will.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I suspect this would be better served on our next validation call, since we have a tendency to talk past each other in mails. At the core, you described a method which, with the information provided, does not satisfy 7.1.2.4. If you believe you can define a method that does, then it's up to you to document and explain. Unsurprisingly, I am categorically unwilling to state "yes" to something that can and will be misconstrued, and in a way that can cause users harm. However, it also seems non-germane to the thread at hand, and so if you'd like to discuss something concrete, it would perhaps best be done in a new thread, to avoid shifting the discussion.</div></div></div>