[cabfpub] Increasing concurrent compliance compatibility

[Peter Bowen]

I propose that we amend the BRs to change the “trigger” for OV/IV to be the explicit inclusion of the appropriate CA/B Forum policy identifier rather than an implicit trigger based on attributes found in the Subject distinguished name.

This would allow CAs who are issuing certificates that need to comply with both the BRs and other certificate policies the ability to set the subject distinguished name as needed.  For example, some CAs may need to follow X.521 for the DN while others may need to use the country, state/province, and locality attributes to indicate legal jurisdiction rather than physical address and others may need to ensure that each legal or natural person has a distinct DN.

Concretely, if a certificate has one or both of:
{joint‐iso‐itu‐t(2) international‐organizations(23) ca‐browser‐forum(140) certificate‐policies(1) baseline‐ requirements(2) organization‐validated(2)} (2.23.140.1.2.2)
{joint‐iso‐itu‐t(2) international‐organizations(23) ca‐browser‐forum(140) certificate‐policies(1) baseline‐ requirements(2) individual‐validated(3)} (2.23.140.1.2.3)
in its certificate policies extension, then the current BR requirements apply to the subject DN.

If neither are in the certificate policies extension, then the only Subject DN restriction would be on the commonName (CN) attribute.  All other attributes would be set according to the non-CABF policy for the certificate

I believe this would help resolve the issues Li-Chen has raised and I think it would help existing PKIs, such as the US Federal PKI, align their policies with the CABF BRs.

Anyone agree or disagree?

Thanks,
Peter