<html>
  <head>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
  </head>
  <body>
    <br>
    <br>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 24/11/2020 6:01 μ.μ., Ryan Sleevi
      wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CACvaWvb=44nN-k0z4L71k8QJSubncv4yTDf3-VC3GTA6YDzsyg@mail.gmail.com">
      <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
      <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" moz-do-not-send="true">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>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    I thought it was relevant because of Doug's proposal to make use of
    a custom extension for OU, so I was trying to get some sense of the
    boundaries on using custom extensions in general, as allowed in the
    BRs. I will try to attend the next validation call to discuss
    further.<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    Thanks,<br>
    Dimitris.<br>
    <br>
    <br>
  </body>
</html>