[Servercert-wg] Voting Begins: Ballot SC19 version 7: Alternative registration numbers for EV certificates

Doug Beattie doug.beattie at globalsign.com
Tue May 14 07:38:19 MST 2019


Tim fixed that in an email he sent right after the sent this one with the
right subject, so please reply to that one. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Servercert-wg <servercert-wg-bounces at cabforum.org> On Behalf Of Tomas
Gustavsson via Servercert-wg
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 10:36 AM
To: servercert-wg at cabforum.org
Subject: Re: [Servercert-wg] Voting Begins: Ballot SC19 version 7:
Alternative registration numbers for EV certificates


Hi,

I know I can not vote, but the Subject Says "Ballot SC19 v7" and the message
says "Ballot SC17".

Ballot SC19 is "Phone Contact with DNS CAA Phone Contact v2".

I think there may be an error in the email subject lines?

Regards,
Tomas

On 2019-05-14 16:21, Juan Ángel Martín via Servercert-wg wrote:
> Camerfirma votes YES on SC19 v2
> 
>  
> 
> Best Regards
> 
> Juan Ángel
> 
>  
> 
> *De:* Servercert-wg <servercert-wg-bounces at cabforum.org> *En nombre de 
> *Tim Hollebeek via Servercert-wg *Enviado el:* lunes, 13 de mayo de 
> 2019 22:15
> *Para:* CA/B Forum Server Certificate WG Public Discussion List 
> <servercert-wg at cabforum.org>
> *Asunto:* [Servercert-wg] Voting Begins: Ballot SC19 version 7:
> Alternative registration numbers for EV certificates
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Ballot SC17: Alternative registration numbers for EU certificates
> 
>  
> 
> Purpose of Ballot: Allow for the inclusion of additional information 
> in
> 
> certificates in order to comply with relevant EU regulations.
> 
>  
> 
> The following motion has been proposed by Tim Hollebeek of DigiCert 
> and endorsed
> 
> by Dimitris Zacharopoulos of Harica and Enrico Entshew of D-Trust.
> 
>  
> 
> Motivation:
> 
>  
> 
> Update to CAB Forum EV Guidelines to cater for alternative 
> registration numbers
> 
> caused by EU Legal Requirements:
> 
>  
> 
> i. The EU Regulation No 910/2014 (eIDAS
> [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2014/910/oj])
> 
>    defines regulatory requirements for certificates with an agreed 
> quality level
> 
>    called Qualified. This regulation specifies in Annex IV specific 
> requirements
> 
>    for “Qualified certificates for website authentication” including 
> the
> 
>    statement that the certificate shall contain: “for a legal person:
> the name
> 
>    and, where applicable, registration number as stated in the 
> official records,”
> 
>   
> 
> ii. It is understood that this requirement relates to validated 
> attributes for
> 
>    the identification of the certificate subject and hence is best 
> fitted in the
> 
>    subject’s distinguished name.
> 
>  
> 
> iii. In line with the regulatory framework ETSI has defined a general 
> structure
> 
>    for carrying “registration numbers” in TS 119 412-1
> 
>    [https://www.etsi.org/standards-search#page=1&search=TS119412-1]
> clause 5.1.4.
> 
>    This uses the X.520
> [https://www.itu.int/rec/dologin_pub.asp?lang=e&id=T-REC-X.520-201210-
> S!!PDF-E&type=items]
> 
> 
>    organizationIdentifier within the subject’s distinguished name in 
> line with its
> 
>    stated purpose being “holds an identification of an organization 
> different
> 
>    from the organization name”. This is used for ETSI requirements to 
> carry
> 
>    registration numbers for certificates, Qualified or otherwise.
> 
>   
> 
> iv. It is considered that this use of organizationIdentifier supports 
> the primary
> 
>    purpose of EV certificates as stated in section 2.1.1 of the EV 
> Guidelines as
> 
>    “other disambiguating information”.
> 
>   
> 
> v. A recent EU delegated Regulation 2018/389 on secure communications 
> for payment
> 
>    services (RTS
> [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32018R038
> 9])
> 
>    states in Article 34.2 that for Qualified Website certificates
> (QWACs) the
> 
>    registration number required in eIDAS “shall be the authorisation 
> number of the
> 
>    payment service provider 
 or equivalent [reference made to earlier 
> regulations
> 
>    relating to banks]”.
> 
>   
> 
> vi. ETSI has specified TS 119 495
> 
>    [https://www.etsi.org/standards-search#page=1&search=TS119495]
> requirements for
> 
>    carrying PSD2 related registration numbers in the general structure 
> for
> 
>    registration numbers defined in TS 119 412-1 clause 5.1.4 as 
> mentioned in
> 
>    iii. above.
> 
>   
> 
> vii. ETSI has endeavoured to ensure and always intended that 
> requirements relating
> 
>    to web site certificates at the Qualified level are in line with 
> the CA/B Forum
> 
>    EV Guidelines.
> 
>   
> 
> viii. This proposal only includes some of the Registration Schemes as 
> used in
> 
>    ETSI TS 119 412-1, which have clear validation rules (NTR, VAT, 
> PSD) that provide
> 
>    reasonable assurance in line with the EV Guidelines. The IPR for 
> the semantics
> 
>    of this scheme is proposed to be released to the CA/B Forum 
> allowing it to
> 
>    further extend the use of organizationIdentifier to include other 
> Registration
> 
>    Schemes (e.g. LEI) and corresponding validation rules, at the CA/B 
> Forum’s
> 
>    discretion. Also, any further changes by ETSI to ETSI TS 119 412-1 
> will not
> 
>    impact the CA/B Forum.
> 
>   
> 
> ix. Having found out that CA/B Forum’s interpretation of EV 
> Requirements in section
> 
>    9.2.8 “Other Attributes” was not in line with those understood by 
> ETSI experts,
> 
>    ETSI would like to harmonise with CA/B Forum approach to carrying 
> alternative
> 
>    forms of registration number for PSD2 and other registration schemes.
> 
>   
> 
> b) CA/B Forum specific concerns are:
> 
>  
> 
> i. Requirements regarding Attributes to be included in the Subject DN 
> need to be
> 
>    explicitly covered in 9.2.
> 
>   
> 
> ii. Organisations may wish to identify OrganisationalUnits within 
> their organisation.
> 
>    It is unclear if this is currently allowed in the EV Guidelines 
> (similar
> 
>    ambiguity in section 9.2.8).
> 
>    
> 
> iii. There are objections to ETSI specific usage of the orgID field 
> (no squatting).
> 
>  
> 
> iv. The procedures for validation of the attribute need to be clearly 
> stated.
> 
>  
> 
> v. There may be other uses of the organizationIdentifier field in 
> various PKIs,
> 
>    however it is not considered to be a problem. Because of the unique 
> semantics we
> 
>    are specifying for each identifier, applications should be able to 
> understand
> 
>    different uses of the OrgID field by different issuers and users.
> There are many
> 
>    different "PKIs" out there that can use all X.500 attributes 
> differently and with
> 
>    different validation or no validation at all. To the best of our 
> knowledge, the
> 
>    WebPKI has never used this subjectDN attribute before for 
> Publicly-Trusted
> 
>    Certificates. Thus there is no "conflict" by using this attribute 
> in the EV
> 
>    Guidelines for SSL/TLS Certificates, and perhaps later for EV Code 
> Signing
> 
>    Certificates.
> 
>   
> 
> vi. This use of organisationIdentifier must be extendable to allow for 
> use by other
> 
>    registration numbers allocated by different registration schemes.
> Some CAB Forum
> 
>    members have indicated interest in carrying registration numbers 
> other than for
> 
>    Incorporation within EV Certificates. This is catered for in the 
> current proposal.
> 
>    
> 
> vii. There is interest by some CA/B Forum members in carrying LEIs 
> within CA/B Forum
> 
>    certificates but as yet the LEI registration scheme is not 
> currently considered
> 
>    sufficiently robust to be recognised as an registration numbering 
> scheme to be
> 
>    accepted by CA/B Forum. Therefore this proposal only introduces a 
> limited set of
> 
>    Registration Schemes (namely NTR, VAT, PSD) which have reasonably 
> robust
> 
>    validation rules.
> 
>   
> 
> viii. Some CA/B Forum members have indicated the possible need for 
> multiple
> 
>    identifiers in the subject name.  This, however, cannot be achieved 
> using X.520
> 
>    organizationIdentifier which defined this attribute as being 
> “SINGLE VALUE”.  The
> 
>    use of a single value has the advantage is it is clear what is the 
> registration,
> 
>    in addition to the company registration, which identifies the subject.
> 
>  
> 
> ---MOTION BEGINS---
> 
>  
> 
> Purpose of Ballot: Update to CAB Forum EV Guidelines to allow 
> alternative
> 
>    registration numbers
> 
>  
> 
> Proposed Ballot for Changes to EVG 1.6.9
> 
>  
> 
> Add to section 4 definitions:
> 
>  
> 
> "Legal Entity: A Private Organization, Government Entity, Business 
> Entity, or
> 
>    Non-Commercial Entity.
> 
>  
> 
> Registration Reference: A unique identifier assigned to a Legal Entity.
> 
>  
> 
> Registration Scheme: A scheme for assigning a Registration Reference 
> meeting the
> 
>    requirements identified in Appendix H."
> 
>  
> 
> Retitle Section 9.2 as "Subject Distinguished Name Fields".
> 
>  
> 
> Remove Section 9.2.2 and renumber sections 9.2.3 through 9.2.8 to 
> 9.2.2 through 9.2.7.
> 
>  
> 
> Insert new section 9.2.8:
> 
>  
> 
> "9.2.8. Subject Organization Identifier Field
> 
>  
> 
> **Certificate field**: organizationIdentifier (OID: 2.5.4.97)
> 
>  
> 
> **Required/Optional**: Optional
> 
>  
> 
> **Contents**: If present, this field MUST contain a Registration 
> Reference for a
> 
>    Legal Entity assigned in accordance to the identified Registration 
> Scheme.
> 
>  
> 
> The organizationIdentifier MUST be encoded as a PrintableString or 
> UTF8String
> 
> (see RFC 5280).
> 
>   
> 
> The Registration Scheme MUST be identified using the following 
> structure
> 
> in the presented order:
> 
>  
> 
> * 3 character Registration Scheme identifier;
> 
> * 2 character ISO 3166 country code for the nation in which the 
> Registration Scheme
> 
>   is operated, or if the scheme is operated globally ISO 3166 code "XG"
> shall be used;
> 
> * For the NTR Registration Scheme identifier, if required under 
> Section 9.2.4, a two
> 
>   character ISO 3166-2 identifier for the subdivision (state or
> province) of the nation
> 
>   in which the Registration Scheme is operated, preceded by plus "+"
> (0x2B (ASCII), U+002B (UTF-8));
> 
> * a hyphen-minus "-" (0x2D (ASCII), U+002D (UTF-8));
> 
> * Registration Reference allocated in accordance with the identified 
> Registration Scheme
> 
>  
> 
> Note: Registration References MAY contain hyphens, but Registration 
> Schemes, ISO 3166
> 
>   country codes, and ISO 3166-2 identifiers do not.  Therefore if more 
> than one hyphen
> 
>   appears in the structure, the leftmost hyphen is a separator, and 
> the remaining hyphens
> 
>   are part of the Registration Reference.
> 
>  
> 
> As in section 9.2.4, the specified location information MUST match the 
> scope of the
> 
> registration being referenced.
> 
>  
> 
> Examples:
> 
>  
> 
> * NTRGB-12345678 (NTR scheme, Great Britain, Unique Identifier at 
> Country level is 12345678)
> 
> * NTRUS+CA-12345678 (NTR Scheme, United States - California, Unique 
> identifier at State level is 12345678)
> 
> * VATDE-123456789 (VAT Scheme, Germany, Unique Identifier at Country 
> Level is 12345678)
> 
> * PSDBE-NBB-1234.567.890 (PSD Scheme, Belgium, NCA's identifier is 
> NBB, Subject Unique Identifier assigned by the NCA is 1234.567.890)
> 
>  
> 
> Registration Schemes listed in Appendix H are currently recognized as 
> valid under
> 
> these guidelines.
> 
>  
> 
> The CA SHALL:
> 
>  
> 
> 1. confirm that the organization represented by the Registration 
> Reference is the
> 
>    same as the organization named in the organizationName field as 
> specified in
> 
>    Section 9.2.1 within the context of the subject’s jurisdiction as 
> specified in
> 
>    Section 9.2.4;
> 
> 2. further verify the Registration Reference matches other information 
> verified
> 
>    in accordance with section 11;
> 
> 3. take appropriate measures to disambiguate between different 
> organizations as
> 
>    described in Appendix H for each Registration Scheme;
> 
> 4. Apply the validation rules relevant to the Registration Scheme as 
> specified
> 
>    in Appendix H."
> 
>  
> 
> Insert new section 9.8 (renumbering following sections as necessary):
> 
>  
> 
> "9.8. Certificate Extensions
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> The extensions listed in the Section 9.8 are recommended for maximum 
> interoperability
> 
> between certificates and browsers / applications, but are not 
> mandatory on the CAs
> 
> except where indicated as “Required”.  CAs may use other extensions 
> that are not
> 
> listed in this Section 9.8, but are encouraged to add them to this 
> section by ballot
> 
> from time to time to help increase extension standardization across 
> the industry.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> If a CA includes an extension in a certificate that has a Certificate 
> field which is
> 
> named in this Section 9.8, the CA must follow the format specified in 
> that subjection.
> 
> However, no extension or extension format shall be mandatory on a CA 
> unless
> 
> specifically stated as “Required” in the subsection that describes the 
> extension.
> 
>  
> 
> 9.8.1. Subject Alternative Name Extension
> 
>  
> 
> **Certificate field:**  _subjectAltName:dNSName_
> 
>  
> 
> **Required/Optional:**  Required
> 
>  
> 
> **Contents:** This extension MUST contain one or more host Domain
> Name(s) owned or controlled
> 
> by the Subject and to be associated with the Subject's server.  Such 
> server MAY be owned and
> 
> operated by the Subject or another entity (e.g., a hosting service). 
> Wildcard certificates
> 
> are not allowed for EV Certificates.
> 
>  
> 
> 9.8.2. CA/Browser Forum Organization Identifier Field
> 
>  
> 
> **Extension Name**: _cabfOrganizationIdentifier_ (OID: 2.23.140.3.1)
> 
>  
> 
> **Verbose OID**: {joint-iso-itu-t(2) international-organizations(23)
> ca-browser-forum(140)
> 
>               certificate-extensions(3) 
> cabf-organization-identifier(1) }
> 
>  
> 
> **Required/Optional**: Optional (but see below)
> 
>  
> 
> **Contents**: If the subject:organizationIdentifier is present, this 
> field SHOULD be present.
> 
> Effective January 31, 2020, if the subject:organizationIdentifier 
> field is present,
> 
> this field MUST be present.
> 
>  
> 
> If present, this field MUST contain a Registration Reference for a
> 
> Legal Entity assigned in accordance to the identified Registration Scheme.
> 
>  
> 
> The Registration Scheme MUST be encoded as described by the following
> ASN.1 grammar:
> 
>  
> 
>     id-CABFOrganizationIdentifier OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {
> joint-iso-itu-t(2) international-organizations(23) 
> ca-browser-forum(140)
> certificate-extensions(3) cabf-organization-identifier(1) }
> 
>  
> 
>     ext-CABFOrganizationIdentifier EXTENSION ::= { SYNTAX 
> CABFOrganizationIdentifier IDENTIFIED BY id-CABFOrganizationIdentifier 
> }
> 
>  
> 
>     CABFOrganizationIdentifier ::= SEQUENCE {
> 
>         registrationSchemeIdentifier   PrintableString (SIZE(3)),
> 
>         registrationCountry            PrintableString (SIZE(2)),
> 
>         registrationStateOrProvince    [0] IMPLICIT PrintableString 
> OPTIONAL (SIZE(0..128)),
> 
>         registrationReference          UTF8String
> 
>     }
> 
>  
> 
> where the subfields and have the same meanings and restrictions 
> described in Section 9.2.8.
> 
> The CA SHALL validate the contents using the requirements in Section
9.2.8."
> 
>  
> 
> Add new Appendix H - Registration Schemes
> 
>  
> 
> "The following Registration Schemes are currently recognised as valid 
> under these
> 
> guidelines:
> 
>  
> 
> **NTR**: The information carried in this field shall be the same as 
> held in Subject
> 
>    Registration Number Field as specified in 9.2.5 and the country 
> code used in
> 
>    the Registration Scheme identifier shall match that of the 
> subject’s jurisdiction
> 
>    as specified in Section 9.2.4.
> 
>  
> 
>    Where the Subject Jurisdiction of Incorporation or Registration 
> Field in 9.2.4
> 
>    
> 
>    includes more than the country code, the additional locality 
> information shall
> 
>  
> 
>    be included as specified in sections 9.2.8 and/or 9.8.1.
> 
>   
> 
> **VAT**: Reference allocated by the national tax authorities to a 
> Legal Entity. This
> 
>    information shall be validated using information provided by the 
> national tax
> 
>    authority against the organisation as identified by the Subject 
> Organization
> 
>    Name Field (see 9.2.1) and Subject Registration Number Field (see
> 9.2.5) within
> 
>    the context of the subject’s jurisdiction as specified in Section
9.2.4.
> 
>   
> 
> **PSD**: Authorization number as specified in ETSI TS 119 495 clause 
> 4.4 allocated to a
> 
>    payment service provider and containing the information as 
> specified in
> 
>    ETSI TS 119 495 clause 5.2.1.  This information SHALL be obtained 
> directly from the
> 
>    national competent authority register for payment services or from 
> an information
> 
>    source approved by a government agency, regulatory body, or 
> legislation for this
> 
>    purpose.  This information SHALL be validated by being matched 
> directly or indirectly
> 
>    (for example, by matching a globally unique registration number) 
> against the
> 
>    organisation as identified by the Subject Organization Name Field 
> (see 9.2.1) and
> 
>    Subject Registration Number Field (see 9.2.5) within the context of 
> the subject’s
> 
>    jurisdiction as specified in Section 9.2.4.  The stated address of 
> the organisation
> 
>    combined with the organization name SHALL NOT be the only 
> information used to
> 
>    disambiguate the organisation."
> 
>  
> 
> ---MOTION ENDS---
> 
>  
> 
> *** WARNING ***: USE AT YOUR OWN RISK.  THE REDLINE BELOW IS NOT THE 
> OFFICIAL VERSION
> 
> OF THE CHANGES (CABF Bylaws, Section 2.4(a)):
> 
>  
> 
> A comparison of the changes can be found at:
> 
>  
> 
> https://github.com/cabforum/documents/compare/Ballot-SC17---Alternativ
> e-registration-numbers-for-EV-certificates?diff=unified&expand=1
> 
>  
> 
> Changes since version 5:
> 
>  
> 
> 1. Remove Registration Reference Provider.
> 
> 2. Note that Registration References MAY contain hyphens, and clarify 
> that the first hyphen is the separator.
> 
> 3. Fix cross-references in Appendix H.
> 
>  
> 
> A comparison of the changes since version 5:
> 
>  
> 
> https://github.com/cabforum/documents/compare/28764a1..a29069d
> 
>  
> 
> The procedure for approval of this ballot is as follows:
> 
>  
> 
> Discussion (7+ days)
> 
>  
> 
> Start Time: May 6, 2019 4:00pm Eastern
> 
>  
> 
> End Time: May 13, 2019 4:15pm Eastern
> 
>  
> 
> Vote for approval (7 days)
> 
>  
> 
> Start Time: May 13, 2019 4:15pm Eastern
> 
>  
> 
> End Time: May 20, 2019 4:15pm Eastern
> 
>  
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Servercert-wg mailing list
> Servercert-wg at cabforum.org
> http://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/servercert-wg
> 
_______________________________________________
Servercert-wg mailing list
Servercert-wg at cabforum.org
http://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/servercert-wg
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5701 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/servercert-wg/attachments/20190514/2525095f/attachment-0001.p7s>


More information about the Servercert-wg mailing list