[cabfpub] Ballot 161 - Notification of incorrect issuance

tScheme Technical Manager richard.trevorah at tScheme.org
Fri Jan 29 16:20:10 UTC 2016

Hi Gerv,

Actually Art 3(16) says:
"(16) ‘trust service’ means an electronic service normally provided for remuneration which consists of:
(a) the creation, verification, and validation of electronic signatures, electronic seals or electronic time stamps, electronic registered delivery services and certificates related to those services, or
(b) the creation, verification and validation of certificates for website authentication; or
(c) the preservation of electronic signatures, seals or certificates related to those services;"

So basically all CAs based in an EU member state would at least be non-qualified TSPs and only be qualified TSPs if they issue QCs or Qualified website certificates.

Richard Trevorah
Technical Manager
tScheme Limited

M: +44 (0) 781 809 4728
F: +44 (0) 870 005 6311


The information in this message and, if present, any attachments are intended solely for the attention and use of the named addressee(s). The content of this e-mail and its attachments is confidential and may be legally privileged. Unless otherwise stated, any use or disclosure is unauthorised and may be unlawful. 

If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the message and any attachments and notify the sender as soon as practicable

-----Original Message-----
From: public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Gervase Markham
Sent: 29 January 2016 16:01
To: Barreira Iglesias, Iñigo; Sigbjørn Vik; public at cabforum.org
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 161 - Notification of incorrect issuance

On 29/01/16 13:45, "Barreira Iglesias, I�igo" wrote:
> Hi, even it�s not in the review period yet, I�d like to highlight
> that in the eIDAS regulation, article 19, indicated what Qualified
> and non-qualified TSPs, so that means all CAs,

Presumably that actually means "all CAs based in Europe, plus all other
CAs who want to offer qualified certificates"?

>  So, I�m not against of the goal of this proposal but as an EU CA I�m
> not developing two procedures for the same issue, so I�d like to have
> the option to just have one and use it, and inform the CABF, the
> browsers or whoever using the same procedure and if possible, the
> same tool.

It seems to me that the proposal does not really specify what system you
use, only that one output be an email, which does not seem like too
great a burden.


Public mailing list
Public at cabforum.org

More information about the Public mailing list