[cabfpub] Baseline Requirements "Certificate Policy" for the Issuance and Management of Publicly-Trusted Certificates

Ryan Sleevi sleevi at google.com
Wed Jun 21 09:40:41 UTC 2017


Hi Li-Chun,

On the basis of the bylaws, this should be conducted as a balloted change
to correct. I'm sure there would be no objection to a ballot making this
typographical fix :)

With respect to what obligations or impact it has on CAs, you don't need to
wait for a ballot to correct this when updating your CPS. This is because
the text prior to what you quoted clearly indicates that the text is an
_example_ way to fulfill the requirement/obligation. That is,

"The CA SHALL publicly give effect to these Requirements and represent that
it will adhere to the latest
published version.  The CA MAY fulfill this requirement by incorporating
these Requirements directly into its
Certificate Policy and/or Certification Practice Statements or by
incorporating them by reference using a
clause such as the following (which MUST include a link to the official
version of these Requirements): "

See how it's a "MAY" (meaning it's an example) of how to fulfill the MUST
(publicly giving effect)


On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 4:40 AM, 陳立群 via Public <public at cabforum.org> wrote:

> We found the cover of  Baseline Requirements from Version 1.3.0 (please
> see https://cabforum.org/baseline-requirements-documents/, ), it added
> "Certificate Policy" as below
>
>
>
> CA/Browser Forum
>
> Baseline Requirements
>
> Certificate Policy
>
> for the
>
> Issuance and Management of
>
> Publicly-Trusted Certificates
>
>
>
> I wonder that should we change the sentences in section 2.2  of Baseline
> Requirements from
>
>
>
>
>
> [Name of CA] conforms to the current version of the Baseline Requirements
> for the Issuance and Management of Publicly‐Trusted Certificates published
> at http://www.cabforum.org. In the event of any inconsistency between
> this document and those Requirements, those Requirements take precedence
> over this document.
>
>
>
> to
>
>
>
> [Name of CA] conforms to the current version of the Baseline Requirements
> Certificate Policy for the Issuance
>
> and Management of Publicly‐Trusted Certificates published at
> http://www.cabforum.org. In the event of any inconsistency between this
> document and those Requirements, those Requirements take precedence over
> this document.
>
>
>
>    For this situation, do we need another vote? or will there be any other
> treatment? And CA should amend their CPS in section 1.2.  I want to hear
> the opinion. Thanks.
>
>
>
>
>
>      Li-Chun Chen
>
>      Chunghwa Telecom
>
> 本信件可能包含中華電信股份有限公司機密資訊,非指定之收件者,請勿蒐集、處理或利用本信件內容,並請銷毀此信件.
> 如為指定收件者,應確實保護郵件中本公司之營業機密及個人資料,不得任意傳佈或揭露,並應自行確認本郵件之附檔與超連結之安全性,
> 以共同善盡資訊安全與個資保護責任.
> Please be advised that this email message (including any attachments)
> contains confidential information and may be legally privileged. If you are
> not the intended recipient, please destroy this message and all attachments
> from your system and do not further collect, process, or use them. Chunghwa
> Telecom and all its subsidiaries and associated companies shall not be
> liable for the improper or incomplete transmission of the information
> contained in this email nor for any delay in its receipt or damage to your
> system. If you are the intended recipient, please protect the confidential
> and/or personal information contained in this email with due care. Any
> unauthorized use, disclosure or distribution of this message in whole or in
> part is strictly prohibited. Also, please self-inspect attachments and
> hyperlinks contained in this email to ensure the information security and
> to protect personal information.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Public mailing list
> Public at cabforum.org
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20170621/a77e110f/attachment-0003.html>


More information about the Public mailing list