[cabfpub] Ballot 148 - Issuer Field Correction
doug.beattie at globalsign.com
Thu Mar 12 14:51:17 UTC 2015
Yes, that will be more accurate. I will add these to the ballot:
5) In section 9.2, edit section reference "9.2.2" to "9.2.2 (a)"
6) Update section references 9.2.4 (f) to 9.2.4.(g) and 9.2.4 to 9.2.2 throughout document.
From: N. Atilla Biler [mailto:atilla.biler at turktrust.com.tr]
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 4:48 AM
To: Doug Beattie; public at cabforum.org
Subject: RE: [cabfpub] Ballot 148 - Issuer Field Correction
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> [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Doug Beattie
Sent: 12 Mart 2015 Perşembe 01:28
To: public at cabforum.org<mailto: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.
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 184.108.40.206. 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 b-i.
3) Delete Section 9.2.3.
4) Renumber 9.2.4 as 9.2.2.
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...
More information about the Public