Re: [cabfpub] Voting Period Begins: Ballot FORUM-022: Establish Forum IPR Subcommittee

eMudhra votes YES on Ballot FORUM-022 From: Public on behalf of Ben Wilson via Public Date: Wednesday, 15 May 2024 at 9:02 AM To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List Subject: [cabfpub] Voting Period Begins: Ballot FORUM-022: Establish Forum IPR Subcommittee CAUTION: This email is

Re: [cabfpub] CABG: Follow-up actions to the creation of the new Definitions and Glossary Working Group

eMudhra would like to express our interest to participate on this DG Working Group (Sorry, sending from the right email account this time - the challenge of configuring multiple accounts on a mobile device 臘‍♂️) Regards, -Scott From: Public on behalf of

Re: [cabfpub] CABG: Follow-up actions to the creation of the new Definitions and Glossary Working Group

eMudhra would like to express our interest to participate on this DG Working Group Regards, -Scott -- *From:* Public on behalf of Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) via Public *Sent:* Monday, April 22, 2024 10:27:35 AM *To:* CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List

Re: [cabfpub] Voting Period Begins | Ballot FORUM-021: Form Definitions and Glossary WG

eMudhra votes YES on FORUM-021 From: Public on behalf of Clint Wilson via Public Date: Thursday, 4 April 2024 at 9:03 AM To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List Subject: [cabfpub] Voting Period Begins | Ballot FORUM-021: Form Definitions and Glossary WG CAUTION: This email is originated

Re: [cabfpub] Review Period Begins: Ballot Forum-9 - Bylaws and Server Certificate Working Group Charter Updates

DarkMatter votes Yes to Ballot Forum-9 Sent from my iPhone Scott Rea Senior Vice President - Trust Services [cid:image4a31d0.PNG@7b6bb813.40bc141e] Level 15, Aldar HQ Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates T +971 2 417 1417 M +971 52 847 5093 E

Re: [cabfpub] Code Signing Working Group - Call for Participants

DarkMatter would like to participate in the Code-Signing WG with Scott Rea and Mats Rosberg as representatives However DM does not issue code-signing certs so we ask to be granted an invitation for Associate Member status in this WG Regards, -- Scott Rea Scott Rea Senior Vice

Re: [cabfpub] Voting Begins: Ballot FORUM-8: Charter to Establish a Code Signing Certificate Working Group

DarkMatter votes YES on Ballot Forum-8 Regards, -- Scott Rea Scott Rea | Senior Vice President - Trust Services Tel: +971 2 417 1417 | Mob: +971 52 847 5093 scott@darkmatter.ae The information transmitted, including attachments, is intended only for the person(s) or entity to

Re: [cabfpub] EV 11.4.1 Business Address Verification

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 11.4.1 Business Address Verification

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

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 a

[cabfpub] EV 11.4.1 Business Address Verification

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

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

Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 185 - Limiting the Lifetime of Certificates

Just a process question Ryan, trying to understand how the CAB processes work... I understand that minor changes are at the discretion of ballot producers and endorsers, and you have posted an update to this ballot under that pretext - my question is just about how the "minor" designation is

Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 185 - Limiting the Lifetime of Certificates

G'day Ryan, I think I must have missed the "general agreement" posts on the list. Minor changes are the discretion of ballot producers and endorsers, did this "general agreement" you are referring to happen off list? Who was involved in the "general agreement" process? Regards, -Scott On

Re: [cabfpub] Draft Ballot 185 - Limiting the Lifetime of Certificates: User input

I think that is a good summary Ryan. We are essentially weighing up the difference of adding 2 days to the minimal possible time for a potential screw up vs a potential significant reduction in effort for some CAs who accommodate multiple trust communities. I think the latter outweighs the

Re: [cabfpub] Draft Ballot 185 - Limiting the Lifetime of Certificates: User input

Well I am not a voting member (yet), so feel free to ride rough shod over what I am saying, not because you are correct, but because you can... You missed entirely what I was saying Ryan. Peter's calculation is technical - I agree, this is why you correctly chose days as the period to be included

Re: [cabfpub] Draft Ballot 185 - Limiting the Lifetime of Certificates: User input

Rob, I am not defending the calculations used to justify 400, only reporting how that community arrived at 400 as their "line in the sand". As Ryan has pointed out, CAs can manage the public holidays and weekends etc - what is important, is that there is a line in the sand that everyone agrees to

Re: [cabfpub] Draft Ballot 185 - Limiting the Lifetime of Certificates: User input

Ryan, I think I may have missed something in your earlier argument because I don't agree that 398 is an "...objective technical value". Isn't 398 just your representation of an upper bound on 13 months? My point is, that 13 months itself is arbitrary, so any pontificating on why someone's

Re: [cabfpub] Draft Ballot 185 - Limiting the Lifetime of Certificates: User input

Ryan, I realize that in your world, you're the only thing that matters, but there are a number of trust ecosystems that exist outside of WebPKI, that also try to interoperate with the WebPKI, and several of the CA providers within WebPKI are also providers for those other trust ecosystems, so

Re: [cabfpub] Draft Ballot 185 - Limiting the Lifetime of Certificates: User input

Ryan, Generally speaking, I am not opposed to what you are trying to achieve with your proposal, but I am less encumbered than other Forum members when it comes to implementation, so I am trying to understand the disruption (from their perception) that will manifest for them and their customers,

Re: [cabfpub] Proposed Ballot 184 - Allowing 822 Names and (limited) otherNames

G'day folks, For the record, I am comfortable with all of Jeremy's proposal with one caveat - I agree with Ryan/Rob/others etc that we should be looking to bring the BRs back into compliance with RFC5280 or rather RFC6818 which is the latest update to 5280 I believe. I don't necessarily agree

Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 184: rfc822Names and otherNames

G'day Ryan, See my responses to your requests, and some further clarifications, inline below... Regards, _Scott On 1/9/2017 8:19 AM, Ryan Sleevi wrote: > On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 1:06 AM, Scott Rea via Public > <public@cabforum.org <mailto:public@cabforum.org>> wrote:

Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 184: rfc822Names and otherNames

G'day folks, I have a couple of perspectives to share on this discussion if I may... One challenge I see from this discussion is that we have a trust community consisting of service providers only - whether that service provider is the Browser or interface through which customers interact, or