[cabf_validation] Registration and Incorporating Agencies Disclosure Formatting

[Ryan Sleevi]

I thought this specific example was governed by Decree 622 of April 5, 2000
<http://ccamazonas.org.co/documentos/decreto622.pdf>, and as Corey
mentioned, established the jurisdiction level as "all the municipalities of
the department of Amazonas", which would appear to be at the State or
Province level.

However, I think you raise a good point, since you have a similar issue
with, say, the Aguachia Chambers of Commerce or the Barranquilla Chambers
of Commerce.

SC30 was designed to be flexible, and tried to avoid as much as possible
any normative requirements on format for the disclosure. So you could do,
as you mention, a comma-separated list, or you could do one row for each
unique tuple of (locality, stateOrProvince, country). While my own personal
preference is to the latter (one row each), that's because I'm primarily
optimizing for "How quickly can I match/validate a given certificate to its
possible information sources". For CAs, I'm entirely sympathetic that their
optimization is probably "How quickly can I maintain and ensure data is
correct" (e.g. should ccamazonas.org.co change their domain name, or should
a supplemental act, such as Decree 4846 of 2017
<http://www.suin-juriscol.gov.co/viewDocument.asp?id=1552762>, modify
things further)

So, ultimately, I'm team "choose what works best for you to enable
disclosure", since that's the primary goal. Aligning formats or other such
is intentionally left off, for when we circle back in 3-6 months to discuss
next steps, based on the experiences in maintaining the data and the
disclosures of the data itself.

On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 6:26 PM Joanna Fox via Validation <
validation at cabforum.org> wrote:

> Hi Corey,
>
>
>
> Thanks for the quick response.  What I’m attempting to communicate is
> questioning when there is one incorporation/registration agency that
> contains data from multiple localities.  We have found a few examples of
> this throughout the years in various countries and I want to ensure we are
> communicating our findings appropriately in our disclosure.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Joanna
>
>
>
> *From:* Corey Bonnell <CBonnell at securetrust.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 17, 2020 1:55 PM
> *To:* Joanna Fox <jweber at godaddy.com>; CA/Browser Forum Validation SC
> List <validation at cabforum.org>
> *Subject:* RE: [cabf_validation] Registration and Incorporating Agencies
> Disclosure Formatting
>
>
>
> Hi Joanna,
>
> From SC30:
>
>
>
> Ø  The accepted value or values for each of the
> `subject:jurisdictionLocalityName` (OID: 1.3.6.1.4.1.311.60.2.1.1),
> `subject:jurisdictionStateOrProvinceName` (OID:
> 1.3.6.1.4.1.311.60.2.1.2), and `subject:jursidictionCountryName` (OID:
> 1.3.6.1.4.1.311.60.2.1.3) fields
>
>
>
> Since it appears that source is for incorporation/registration at the
> state level, there would be nothing listed under locality in your table
> since the jurisL field in EV certificates should not be populated.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Corey
>
>
>
> *From:* Validation <validation-bounces at cabforum.org> *On Behalf Of *Joanna
> Fox via Validation
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 17, 2020 4:30 PM
> *To:* CA/Browser Forum Validation WG List <validation at cabforum.org>
> *Subject:* [cabf_validation] Registration and Incorporating Agencies
> Disclosure Formatting
>
>
>
> Hello all,
>
>
>
> As we are close to completion for this project, I want to ensure that the
> intent of our Jurisdiction disclosure is understood. In the case where a
> specific source has multiple possible Jurisdiction options at the locality
> level, there are a few options for displaying the information. One option
> is placing those values in one field, comma separated, as displayed below.
> Another option is to separate line by line for each differing locality.
> This alternate option makes for a substantially longer list but more
> clearly communicates C/S/L.  Any thoughts or comments are appreciate.
>
>
>
> *Country*
>
> *Name of source*
>
> *Website*
>
> *Jurisdiction (Country)*
>
> *Jurisdiction (State or Province)*
>
> *Jurisdiction (Locality)*
>
> Colombia
>
> Cámara de Comercio del Amazonas
>
> *http://www.ccamazonas.org.co/actual/
> <http://scanmail.trustwave.com/?c=4062&d=yMfj31PDDJe1LZyd7Nkh66ceHu4wO906B7v8-KVj4g&s=5&u=http%3a%2f%2fwww%2eccamazonas%2eorg%2eco%2factual%2f>*
>
> CO
>
> Amazonas
>
> El Encanto, La Chorrera, La Pedrera, La Victoria, Leticia, Mirití-Paraná,
> Puerto Alegría, Puerto Arica, Puerto Nariño, Puerto Santander, Tarapacá
>
>
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
>
>
>
>
> *Joanna Fox*
>
> GoDaddy | Sr. Manager Compliance
>
> [image: https://email-sig.gd-resources.net/img/godaddy-logo-outline.png]
>
> +1.602.817.7258 <(602)%20817-7258> (-7 GMT)
>
> jfox at godaddy.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Validation mailing list
> Validation at cabforum.org
> https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/validation
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/attachments/20200917/a66d2ad4/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6498 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/attachments/20200917/a66d2ad4/attachment-0001.png>