[cabfcert_policy] RFC-3647-Formatted EV Guidelines

[Dimitris Zacharopoulos]

Time capsule!

https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2015-August/005913.html



On 3/5/2018 8:34 μμ, Jeremy Rowley wrote:
>
> 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
>     <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fclicktime.symantec.com%2Fa%2F1%2FqigTJVn_tVz_dZY0BLF3ZDgiGp82LhIIW1nltwYU9MQ%3D%3Fd%3DCljAdTRAJx0KHoPq9JgxIfsnIP0MGOjEItlwbNVVgOSoM-i95V6scf00MDObecnOf1qx1S4ovjSpdAXhQyv8XbRDPKTcZZTNBDJcezxxhZvNtQyjFuOebeuAhuNa9Tb-V82KFkxjThOiWL17Sgqf49wvKI4-55RJlvZoT3ihS8cmo54ya5Xz5jARD9ZicE7DPVslynW2YTmhn0qNg7PxHZimRDddo5REvcfOBB2oe2506ZTrEvauptjR-KHXzXruqnMVBBlv3LfSkabpBLQM_2O8rYY4HZ_jTzr2Yo9c6AId9wK9-_zEXYiDi3_yqimuPlh3rD2A9WmBZQYW2QfKoTPTpPOlRAebw2DMFMx9LWcyYocQKOO2zrzFXsZW0ArCtdjyO7sBlIRMEhcwal3bjok2_bOp8l6e0ItIZM_64g%253D%253D%26u%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fcabforum.org%252Fmailman%252Flistinfo%252Fpolicyreview&data=02%7C01%7Cfrazier.evans%40protiviti.com%7C24ce8d395cca49e50ed008d5b118a8ed%7C16532572d5674d678727f12f7bb6aed3%7C0%7C0%7C636609641830522883&sdata=vk%2B7YmqgCagzzIUCNpcL%2FuQlYaKW7s9PzJ92TDtrAt4%3D&reserved=0>
>
> 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/20180503/303a128b/attachment.html>