[Servercert-wg] LEI Ballot - looking for second endorser

[Ryan Sleevi]

Thanks Tim!

I left a number of comments on
https://github.com/cabforum/documents/pull/139#pullrequestreview-277466868 and
tried to offer concrete suggestions.

There's still a non-trivial amount of (unnecessary) marketing copy, which
I've flagged for deletion.

I've tried to formalize the validation process more, and in doing so, I'm
even more skeptical of the value. That is, a properly validated EV
certificate (which we know a number of members of this Forum are struggling
with doing correctly, apparently) should have sufficient information to
determine the associated LEI within the certificate already. That is,
searching by the subject serialNumber and jurisdiction, assuming the CA
properly validated and encoded the certificate, seems like should be
sufficient to determine the associated LEI.

Another element to consider is the intersection between ISO 17442 versions,
and how that should impact. For example, ISO 17442:2019 is the current
version (under review), replacing the (withdrawn) ISO 17442:2012. I'm not
aware of a freely available copy of ISO 17442:2019 - are you? This does
make it somewhat more difficult to verify the correctness here, with
respect to both Section 4 and Section 6 of the aforementioned ISO standard.
I've attempted to compare against GLEIF's LEI-CDF Level 1 format, but I'd
definitely want to check against ISO 17442 before including within the BRs.

On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 3:48 PM Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com> wrote:

> Oh, for sure. I wasn't trying to fork discussion, so much as provide more
> specific and contextual suggestions for generalized problems. The nice
> thing is that I can make or suggest changes on the GitHub in order to make
> it easier for you to evaluate/integrate, but post the links back here for
> the Forum to provide context and visibility, which I'll now go and do :)
>
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 3:29 PM Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Okay, I was trying to keep the discussion here because not everyone uses
>> github, but I’m not picky.  If you want to discuss it there that’s fine.
>>
>>
>>
>> -Tim
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com>
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 20, 2019 2:28 PM
>> *To:* Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com>
>> *Cc:* CA/B Forum Server Certificate WG Public Discussion List <
>> servercert-wg at cabforum.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: [Servercert-wg] LEI Ballot - looking for second endorser
>>
>>
>>
>> Sounds like there was still some confusion. If you open a draft pull
>> request, it's easier to discuss inline and offer clearer suggestions then
>> on ways to resolve.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 2:27 PM Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I made both of the changes you wanted – added a requirement for
>> FULLY_CORROBORATED, and removed an unnecessary sentence or two from the
>> definitions.
>>
>>
>>
>> -Tim
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com>
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 20, 2019 2:13 PM
>> *To:* Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com>; CA/B Forum Server
>> Certificate WG Public Discussion List <servercert-wg at cabforum.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: [Servercert-wg] LEI Ballot - looking for second endorser
>>
>>
>>
>> Tim,
>>
>>
>>
>> Are you open to feedback within GitHub, including potential corrections?
>> If so, you can open a draft pull request (e.g. as done with
>> https://github.com/cabforum/documents/pull/138 ) which can allow such
>> comments and collaboration, as discussed at the Greece F2F.
>>
>>
>>
>> I don't see any changes from the issues discussed on the call. I know
>> you've expressed an opinion that changes will not be made unless someone
>> gives you alternative text, but I'm curious if it was intentional in this
>> case to not incorporate that feedback before seeking a co-endorser?
>>
>>
>>
>> As the ballot currently stands, this would be a No vote from us, and so
>> I'd like to try to help you understand the concerns we've raised
>> previously, so they can be integrated before proceeding to ballot, if
>> possible.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 1:54 PM Tim Hollebeek via Servercert-wg <
>> servercert-wg at cabforum.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Ballot SC??: Legal Entity Identifiers
>>
>> Purpose of Ballot: Allow for the inclusion of globally unique LEI
>> identifiers
>>
>> into the cabfOrganizationIdentifier field.
>>
>>
>>
>> The following motion has been proposed by Tim Hollebeek of DigiCert and
>> endorsed
>>
>> by Richard Smith of Sectigo and ??? of ???.
>>
>>
>>
>> ---MOTION BEGINS---
>>
>>
>>
>> Amend the EV Guidelines version 1.7.0 as follows:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> https://github.com/cabforum/documents/compare/master...timfromdigicert:Ballot-LEI?expand=1
>>
>>
>>
>> ---MOTION ENDS---
>>
>>
>>
>> The procedure for approval of this ballot is as follows:
>>
>> Discussion (7+ days)
>>
>> Start Time: ???
>>
>> End Time: ???
>>
>> Vote for approval (7 days)
>>
>> Start Time: ???
>>
>> End Time: ???
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Servercert-wg mailing list
>> Servercert-wg at cabforum.org
>> http://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/servercert-wg
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/servercert-wg/attachments/20190820/cd1d5276/attachment-0001.html>