[cabfpub] Ballot 148 - Issuer Field Correction

N. Atilla Biler atilla.biler at turktrust.com.tr
Thu Mar 12 11:48:13 UTC 2015

To be more specific about domain name representation, the section reference
given as 9.2.2 under item 9.2 below may also be changed to 9.2.2(a) in the
proposed ballot; the new Section 9.2.2(a) being "Subject Common Name Field".


BR - 9.2 Subject Information

By issuing the Certificate, the CA represents that it followed the procedure
set forth in its Certificate Policy and/or Certification Practice Statement
to verify that, as of the Certificate's issuance date, all of the Subject
Information was accurate.  CAs SHALL NOT include a Domain Name in a Subject
attribute except as specified in Sections 9.2.1 and 9.2.2(a) below.







From: public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On
Behalf Of Doug Beattie
Sent: 12 Mart 2015 Perşembe 01:28
To: public at cabforum.org
Subject: [cabfpub] Ballot 148 - Issuer Field Correction


Ballot 148 - Issuer Field Correction 




The issuer field language in Section 9.1 of the Baseline Requirements
confuses two issues: 

1) the contents of the issuer field in an end entity cert and 

2) how to name root and intermediate CA certificates. 


To clarify the issue, and ensure proper name chaining, this ballot fixes the
issuer field requirements and, to clarify that commonName field is part of
the distinguished name, moves all of the Subject Distinguished Name Field
requirements under the proper section. The ballot also removes requirements
around the domainComponent field as the field is not used by current TLS
clients. A subsequent ballot will address naming of roots and intermediates
under current Section 9.2.5. 


Doug Beattie of GlobalSign made the following motion, which was endorsed by
Jeremy Rowley of DigiCert and Richard Wang of WoSign. 


Motion begins 


1) Replace Section 9.1 with the following: 

"9.1 Issuer Information 

The content of the Certificate Issuer Distinguished Name field MUST match
the Subject DN of the Issuing CA to support Name chaining as specified in
RFC 5280, section Only in the event of a self-signed root will the
issuer and subject fields be identical." 


2) Move Section 9.2.2 to 9.2.4(a) and renumber the subsequent sections as


3) Delete Section 9.2.3. 


4) Renumber 9.2.4 as 9.2.2. 


Motion Ends 


The review period for this ballot shall commence at 2200 UTC on 12 Mar 2015,
and will close at 2200 UTC on 19 Mar 2015. Unless the motion is withdrawn
during the review period, the voting period will start immediately
thereafter and will close at 2200 UTC on 26 Mar 2015. Votes must be cast by
posting an on-list reply to this thread. 

A vote in favor of the motion must indicate a clear 'yes' in the response. A
vote against must indicate a clear 'no' in the response. A vote to abstain
must indicate a clear 'abstain' in the response. Unclear responses will not
be counted. The latest vote received from any representative of a voting
member before the close of the voting period will be counted. Voting members
are listed here: https://cabforum.org/members/ 

In order for the motion to be adopted, two thirds or more of the votes cast
by members in the CA category and greater than 50% of the votes cast by
members in the browser category must be in favor. Quorum is currently nine
(9) members- at least nine members must participate in the ballot, either by
voting in favor, voting against, or abstaining. 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20150312/dcdb6079/attachment-0003.html>

More information about the Public mailing list