[cabf_validation] Proposed ballot on improving Registration Number language in EVGs

[Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA)]

On 16/8/2024 2:53 π.μ., Clint Wilson via Validation wrote:
> Hi Corey,
>
> Overall this seems like a good improvement to clarity of the current 
> expectations related to these sections of the EVGs, reflecting the 
> predominant approach to populating the subject:serialNumber field for 
> EV TLS certificates. I do think it would be valuable to standardize on 
> a date format (admittedly somewhat because it feels like a missed 
> opportunity to not do so). What about something like modifying the 
> newly added definition:
>
>     **Date of Formation**: The date on which a Legal Entity is first
>     recognized by the jurisdiction in which it was created or formed.
>     The date is formatted according to the complete representation of
>     an extended format calendar date in ISO 8601 (i.e. YYYY-MM-DD;
>     e.g. 0001-01-01).
>

Hi Clint,

I'm in favor of examples where they help avoid unintended mistakes, so I 
would support adding something like "e.g. 2000-12-31" to make it 
abundantly clear where the month and day is supposed to be represented.


Thanks,
Dimitris.

>
> The parenthetical is probably too much, but you get the idea. And then 
> the three instances of "in any one of the common date formats” could 
> just be deleted.
>
> Cheers,
> -Clint
>
>> On Aug 9, 2024, at 8:55 AM, Corey Bonnell via Validation 
>> <validation at cabforum.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>> Some time ago, I presented [1] a ballot proposal on improving the 
>> requirements for the Registration Number value in the EVGs. Here is 
>> the current 
>> proposal:https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/compare/main...CBonnell:servercert:govt-entity-serial-number.
>> On the call where the proposal was presented, there was a desire to 
>> explore standardizing date formats for the Date of Formation. Is this 
>> something that we would like to see added to the ballot? For the sake 
>> of minimizing scope of the ballot, I’m in favor of moving forward 
>> without such a requirement, but will certainly be happy to 
>> incorporate if there are strong feelings that such a requirement 
>> should be added in this ballot.
>> Thanks,
>> Corey
>> [1]https://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/2024-July/001997.html
>> _______________________________________________
>> Validation mailing list
>> Validation at cabforum.org
>> https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/validation
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20240823/783857e5/attachment.html>