[cabfpub] [CABFORUM] Re: Ballot 148 - Issuer Field Correction (rev 1)
doug.beattie at globalsign.com
Thu Mar 19 11:10:54 MST 2015
Yea, I took the words that were in section 9.1 before and used them exactly here so as not to make un-necessary changes, but I have no problem taking them out.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Bowen [mailto:pzbowen at gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 1:49 PM
> To: Doug Beattie; Ryan Sleevi
> Cc: public at cabforum.org
> Subject: [CABFORUM] Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 148 - Issuer Field Correction (rev 1)
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 10:39 AM, Doug Beattie
> <doug.beattie at globalsign.com> wrote:
> > I’m reposting Ballot 148 with new review and voting periods to address
> > recent comments.
> > - organizationName (OID 18.104.22.168). This field MUST contain the name
> > (or abbreviation thereof), trademark, or other meaningful identifier
> > for the CA, provided that they accurately identify the CA. The field
> > MUST NOT contain exclusively a generic designation such as “CA1”.
> In the spirit of avoiding things that are ambiguous, I would suggest avoiding the
> defining this further than "MUST not be empty" and "MUST NOT contain
> exclusively a generic designation such as “CA1”.
> There are several CAs who appear to have issued Subordinate CA certificates
> where the Organization Name attribute is that of a partner/reseller yet the
> Subordinate CA is included in the CA's CPS and audit. I personally do not find this
> an unreasonable practice, but I think an auditor could reasonably argue that
> "XYZ Corp" is not a meaningful identifier for "Example, Inc" CA.
More information about the Public