Also forwarding Erwann's reply.
DZ.
Bonjour,
The format of the extension needs to be defined as well. I guess a NULL
content will be sufficient for the purpose of a test certificate.
Whence, adopting the RFC5912 notation, the test extension could be
defined as:
id-cabforum OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { 2 23 140 }
id-cabf-testcertificate OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-cabforum XX YY ZZ }
-- To be defined
ext-cabf-testcertificate EXTENSION ::= {
SYNTAX NULL IDENTIFIED BY id-cabf-testcertificate
CRITICALITY { TRUE }
}
Cordialement,
Erwann Abalea
On 5/9/2016 3:24 μμ, Dimitris Zacharopoulos wrote:
Re-posting to the public list.
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: [cabfman] Assign Test Certificate CAB Forum OID
Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2016 11:52:30 +0000
From: Dean Coclin <[email protected]>
To: Dimitris Zacharopoulos <[email protected]>
CC: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Public list would be appropriate as I don't see anything confidential
here?
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 5, 2016, at 9:54 AM, Dimitris Zacharopoulos <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Ballot 169
<https://cabforum.org/2016/08/05/ballot-169-revised-validation-requirements/>,
defines:
*"Test Certificate:* A Certificate with a maximum validity period of
30 days and which i) includes a critical extension with the specified
Test Certificate CABF OID, or ii) which chains to a root certificate
not subject to these Requirements. "
This OID is not defined yet. Does this process go through a regular
ballot? Is it an issue for the management or the public list?
Best regards,
Dimitris.
_______________________________________________
Management mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/management
_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
[email protected]
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
[email protected]
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
