Re: [Smcwg-public] Ballot SMC06v2: Post implementation clarification and corrections

DigiCert votes YES on SMC-06. -Tim From: Smcwg-public On Behalf Of Stephen Davidson via Smcwg-public Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2024 2:15 PM To: smcwg-public@cabforum.org Subject: [Smcwg-public] Ballot SMC06v2: Post implementation clarification and corrections Ballot SMC06: Post

Re: [Smcwg-public] Voting period begins for Ballot SMC06: Post implementation clarification and corrections

DigiCert votes YES on SMC-06. -Tim From: Smcwg-public On Behalf Of Stephen Davidson via Smcwg-public Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2024 12:15 PM To: smcwg-public@cabforum.org Subject: [Smcwg-public] Voting period begins for Ballot SMC06: Post implementation clarification and corrections

Re: [Smcwg-public] Certificate Template Information extension and SBR allowance

believe that any publicly supported and documented X.509 extension (e.g. defined by IETF or ITU-T) are allowed for use by CAs, as long as they are documented in the CA's CPS. Is there anything that prevents it in the current CA/B Forum documents? Thanks, DZ. Jan 10, 2024 20:38:19 Tim Hollebeek via Smc

Re: [Smcwg-public] Certificate Template Information extension and SBR allowance

and documented X.509 extension (e.g. defined by IETF or ITU-T) are allowed for use by CAs, as long as they are documented in the CA's CPS. Is there anything that prevents it in the current CA/B Forum documents? Thanks, DZ. Jan 10, 2024 20:38:19 Tim Hollebeek via Smcwg-public mailto:smcwg-pub

Re: [Smcwg-public] Voting period begins for SMC-05: Adoption of CAA for S/MIME

DigiCert votes YES on SMC-05. -Tim From: Smcwg-public On Behalf Of Corey Bonnell via Smcwg-public Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2024 5:32 PM To: SMIME Certificate Working Group Subject: [Smcwg-public] Voting period begins for SMC-05: Adoption of CAA for S/MIME Ballot SMC05: Adoption

Re: [Smcwg-public] Certificate Template Information extension and SBR allowance

CPS. Is there anything that prevents it in the current CA/B Forum documents? Thanks, DZ. Jan 10, 2024 20:38:19 Tim Hollebeek via Smcwg-public mailto:smcwg-public@cabforum.org> >: You don’t need a contract to have a right to use someone else’s extension. I would say that if Microso

Re: [Smcwg-public] Certificate Template Information extension and SBR allowance

You don’t need a contract to have a right to use someone else’s extension. I would say that if Microsoft has public documentation that says or implies that the extension can and should be used by other organizations, then other organizations “have the right” to use that extension. That

Re: [Smcwg-public] CAA for S/MIME

Yep, that’s correct and would be fine. -Tim From: Smcwg-public On Behalf Of Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) via Smcwg-public Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2023 6:04 AM To: smcwg-public@cabforum.org Subject: Re: [Smcwg-public] CAA for S/MIME On 6/12/2023 7:59 μ.μ., Stephen Davidson

Re: [Smcwg-public] VOTE FOR APPROVAL Ballot SMC04: Addition of ETSI TS 119 411-6 to audit standards

DigiCert votes YES on SMC-004. -Tim From: Smcwg-public On Behalf Of Stephen Davidson via Smcwg-public Sent: Wednesday, November 1, 2023 1:08 PM To: SMIME Certificate Working Group Subject: [Smcwg-public] VOTE FOR APPROVAL Ballot SMC04: Addition of ETSI TS 119 411-6 to audit standards

Re: [Smcwg-public] Fields for S/MIME CSRs

We should definitely add guidance, but it needs to be couched in “if using CSRs …”. I consider CSRs to be mildly obsolete, and generally useful only because they are the format that most key generation tools and CA toolchains are used to dealing with and have robust support for. Which I

Re: [Smcwg-public] [EXTERNAL] [Servercert-wg] SC-XXX: Modify Subscriber Agreement and Terms of Use

I agree with Bruce, and I think we might also want to synchronize the effective dates. Many customers have a variety of kinds of certificates included in the same contract, and having two different sets of terminology for the same legal document involved in the same contract would be really

Re: [Smcwg-public] Scope of S/MIME BRs and No EKU in an S/MIME Certificate

No EKU is the same as AnyEKU, and should be treated accordingly. Otherwise you’re diverging from RFC 5280 and there’s no reason to even contemplate that for this. -Tim From: Smcwg-public On Behalf Of Ben Wilson via Smcwg-public Sent: Friday, July 28, 2023 9:45 AM To: SMIME Certificate