Re: [cabfpub] Ballots 210 and 212

2017-09-04 Thread Kirk Hall via Public
Ben, terrific work. Thanks again for all your hard work. From: Public [mailto:public-boun...@cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Ben Wilson via Public Sent: Monday, September 4, 2017 10:21 AM To: CABFPub Subject: [EXTERNAL][cabfpub] Ballots 210 and 212 The documents amended by

[cabfpub] Ballots 210 and 212

2017-09-04 Thread Ben Wilson via Public
The documents amended by Ballots 210 and 212 (the Network and Certificate System Security Requirements and the Baseline Requirements, respectively), have been updated on GitHub and are live now on the CA/Browser Forum website. I'll upload the Word versions of the files up to the wiki shortly.

Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 213 - Revocation Timeline Extension

2017-09-04 Thread Ryan Sleevi via Public
On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 5:27 AM, Gervase Markham wrote: > On 01/09/17 18:58, Ryan Sleevi wrote: > > It's primarily about ensuring transparency in a way that's consistent - > > and the Forum is relevant because it feeds into our determination about > > ways to clarify text, while

Re: [cabfpub] EV 11.4.1 Business Address Verification

2017-09-04 Thread Scott Rea via Public
On 9/4/2017 3:08 PM, Gervase Markham wrote: > On 04/09/17 10:42, Scott Rea wrote: >> We could, proving they have a physical location is not the issue, it's >> having done that, providing an accurate, consistent, repeatable >> description of what that address is - is the challenge. The PO Box >>

Re: [cabfpub] EV 11.2.1 Private Organization registration number or date

2017-09-04 Thread Moudrick M. Dadashov via Public
This is  good idea, but unfortunately, hardly realizable - the fact that a country has ISO/ITU designated RA, doesn't mean you can get an OID... Thanks, M.D. On 9/4/2017 10:54 AM, Scott Rea via Public wrote: In the use case stated here, the applicant only does not qualify because there is not

Re: [cabfpub] EV 11.4.1 Business Address Verification

2017-09-04 Thread Gervase Markham via Public
On 04/09/17 10:42, Scott Rea wrote: > We could, proving they have a physical location is not the issue, it's > having done that, providing an accurate, consistent, repeatable > description of what that address is - is the challenge. The PO Box > becomes that after verification, but EVG says we

Re: [cabfpub] EV 11.4.1 Business Address Verification

2017-09-04 Thread Scott Rea via Public
On 9/4/2017 1:30 PM, Gervase Markham wrote: > On 04/09/17 10:17, Scott Rea wrote: >> Its different for a company - the company has to have a physical >> location in the jurisdiction of the registering agency. The problem is >> that the description of the physical location can be problematic e.g.

Re: [cabfpub] EV 11.4.1 Business Address Verification

2017-09-04 Thread Gervase Markham via Public
On 04/09/17 10:17, Scott Rea wrote: > Its different for a company - the company has to have a physical > location in the jurisdiction of the registering agency. The problem is > that the description of the physical location can be problematic e.g. > "warehouse behind the pink shop half way between

Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 213 - Revocation Timeline Extension

2017-09-04 Thread Gervase Markham via Public
On 01/09/17 18:58, Ryan Sleevi wrote: > It's primarily about ensuring transparency in a way that's consistent - > and the Forum is relevant because it feeds into our determination about > ways to clarify text, while also providing a useful reference for > auditors and CAs regarding root stores'

Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 213 - Revocation Timeline Extension

2017-09-04 Thread Gervase Markham via Public
On 01/09/17 18:51, Wayne Thayer via Public wrote: > I have a question related to the (unchanged) requirement that the CA > revoke the certificate within 24 hours if ‘the subscriber requests in > writing that the CA revoke the Certificate’. Presumably, this is the > subscriber sending an email to

Re: [cabfpub] EV 11.4.1 Business Address Verification

2017-09-04 Thread Scott Rea via Public
On 9/4/2017 12:34 PM, Gervase Markham via Public wrote: > On 04/09/17 09:33, Scott Rea via Public wrote: >> The real issue here is that Applicants only provide PO Boxes as their >> address, and the PO Box is what is recorded in the QGIS, QIIS, QTIS etc. >> It should also be noted you need a

Re: [cabfpub] EV 11.4.1 Business Address Verification

2017-09-04 Thread Gervase Markham via Public
On 04/09/17 09:33, Scott Rea via Public wrote: > The real issue here is that Applicants only provide PO Boxes as their > address, and the PO Box is what is recorded in the QGIS, QIIS, QTIS etc. > It should also be noted you need a physical location in the postal area > to get the corresponding PO

[cabfpub] EV 11.4.1 Business Address Verification

2017-09-04 Thread Scott Rea via Public
G'day folks, one of the challenges that exist in the Middle East is that addresses are not consistently applied - they can be more of a loose description of how to get somewhere and could be given from multiple perspectives to arrive at the same location. As a result, they are typically not

Re: [cabfpub] EV 11.2.1 Private Organization registration number or date

2017-09-04 Thread Scott Rea via Public
In the use case stated here, the applicant only does not qualify because there is not a unique ID and date registered with an accepted authority (if I understand things correctly). So why not ask the organization to register their company with whoever the country RA is (assuming the country has an