[cabf_validation] Issues for next Validation Working Group call

[Kirk Hall]

Interesting.  I wonder when that OID was added?  What is added after Ballot 169 passed, or earlier for a different purpose?  (Does anyone know?)

From: 陳立群 [mailto:realsky at cht.com.tw]
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 6:15 PM
To: Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrust.com>; 'validation' <validation at cabforum.org>
Subject: RE: [cabf_validation] Issues for next Validation Working Group call

Dear Kirk,

For topic (2), I found https://www.cabforum.org/wiki/Object%20Registry

2.23.140.2.1

test-certificate

Certificate OID Value

This extension will be marked critical in Test Certificates to render them invalid for browser use


    Li-Chun CHEN

From: Validation [mailto:validation-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Kirk Hall via Validation
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 6:28 AM
To: 'validation (validation at cabforum.org<mailto:validation at cabforum.org>)'
Subject: [cabf_validation] Issues for next Validation Working Group call

Here are some issues from the Sept. 15 CABF call for the VWG to consider.  I know there are other issues also.  Dean says there is no time for a VWG meeting at the F2F next week, so we should consider on our next call.

Did we find an alternative time for future calls?

(1) Updating BR 3.2.2.5 (IP Address verification) to match Ballot 169.  Doug had sent an email suggesting the validation methods for IP addresses in BR 3.2.2.5 be updated as appropriate to match the new validation methods for domain names in BR 3.2.2.4.  Gerv agreed, and suggested the issue be sent to the Validation Working Group.  Kirk will make this request to Jeremy Rowley, who was not on the call.

(2) OID needed for Test Certificate under Ballot 169.  Dimitris pointed out that the new definition of Test Certificate under Ballot 169 called for the CA to include “a critical extension with the specified Test Certificate CABF OID” in the Test Certificates.  Kirk asked if this was meant to be a single Test Certificate OID used by all CAs, or one unique to each CA.  Dimitris said the natural interpretation was a single CABF OID used by all CAs, and thought the Validation Working Group should get an OID assigned.  Doug agreed.  Kirk noted the Validation Working Group recently became inactive, but that he would talk to Jeremy Rowley about scheduling new meetings.






From: validation-bounces at cabforum.org<mailto:validation-bounces at cabforum.org> [mailto:validation-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Dean Coclin
Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2016 2:13 PM
To: validation (validation at cabforum.org<mailto:validation at cabforum.org>) <validation at cabforum.org<mailto:validation at cabforum.org>>
Subject: [cabf_validation] Validation Working Group Call

Does the Validation working group want to take the Code signing time slot which is Noon Eastern time tomorrow?

Code Signing has no meetings scheduled right now so you can conceivably take it.

Dean

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.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/attachments/20161013/12deb103/attachment-0001.html>