[cabfcert_policy] RFC-3647-Formatted EV Guidelines

[Dimitris Zacharopoulos]

I knew I had seen an attempt for markdown...

https://github.com/pzb/PublicCP/blob/master/docs/ExtendedValidation.md

https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2015-September/006035.html

Also, check the attachment.


Dimitris.

On 3/5/2018 8:40 μμ, Dimitris Zacharopoulos wrote:
> 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/ff8ea6a6/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: BREV-merged.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 534430 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/policyreview/attachments/20180503/ff8ea6a6/attachment-0001.pdf>