[cabfcert_policy] RFC-3647-Formatted EV Guidelines

[Jeremy Rowley]

You’re preaching to the choir there. I thought we should combine them years ago. Most of the EV requirements (except validation) all point directly to the BRs. Why not make them the same policy? OV and DV are already contained in the same policy so I don’t really understand why we don’t combine EV.

 

From: Evans, Frazier (10421) <frazier.evans at protiviti.com> 
Sent: Thursday, May 3, 2018 11:33 AM
To: Jeremy Rowley <jeremy.rowley at digicert.com>; Dimitris Zacharopoulos <jimmy at it.auth.gr>; Ben Wilson <ben.wilson at digicert.com>; policyreview at cabforum.org
Subject: RE: [cabfcert_policy] RFC-3647-Formatted EV Guidelines

 

So I guess one of the questions that comes to my mind is, why should these documents be maintained as separate documents?  Jeremy, my personal opinion is why can’t they be the same document and we call out EV specific requirements specifically.  Then there is only one set of standards to be maintaining which is usally easier.   (give me 30 seconds to put on the flack jacket…)

 

Just my personal .02

 

Frazier

 

From: Policyreview <policyreview-bounces at cabforum.org <mailto:policyreview-bounces at cabforum.org> > On Behalf Of Jeremy Rowley
Sent: Thursday, May 3, 2018 1:09 PM
To: Dimitris Zacharopoulos <jimmy at it.auth.gr <mailto:jimmy at it.auth.gr> >; Ben Wilson <ben.wilson at digicert.com <mailto:ben.wilson at digicert.com> >; policyreview at cabforum.org <mailto:policyreview at cabforum.org> 
Subject: Re: [cabfcert_policy] RFC-3647-Formatted EV Guidelines

 

The previous version was never adopted because people didn’t like that most of the EV guidelines resided in Section 3.2. I don’t see a reason not to combine the two documents into a single policy.

 

From: Policyreview <policyreview-bounces at cabforum.org <mailto:policyreview-bounces at cabforum.org> > On Behalf Of Dimitris Zacharopoulos
Sent: Thursday, May 3, 2018 10:35 AM
To: Ben Wilson <ben.wilson at digicert.com <mailto:ben.wilson at digicert.com> >; policyreview at cabforum.org <mailto:policyreview at cabforum.org> 
Subject: Re: [cabfcert_policy] RFC-3647-Formatted EV Guidelines

 

This is great! At last, everyone will be able to see the great many overlaps between the BRs and the EVGs :-)

Dimitris.

On 3/5/2018 7:31 μμ, Ben Wilson wrote:

Here is that set of EV Guidelines Formatted according to RFC 3647.

 

_______________________________________________
Policyreview mailing list
Policyreview at cabforum.org <mailto:Policyreview at cabforum.org> 
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/policyreview

 

NOTICE: Protiviti is a global consulting and internal audit firm composed of experts specializing in risk and advisory services. Protiviti is not licensed or registered as a public accounting firm and does not issue opinions on financial statements or offer attestation services. This electronic mail message is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This message, together with any attachment, may contain confidential and privileged information. Any views, opinions or conclusions expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and do not necessarily reflect the views of Protiviti Inc. or its affiliates. Any unauthorized review, use, printing, copying, retention, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately advise the sender by reply email message to the sender and delete all copies of this message. Thank you. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/policyreview/attachments/20180503/33deb693/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4984 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/policyreview/attachments/20180503/33deb693/attachment-0001.p7s>