All,
I’ve posted the proposal to the PKIX list and haven’t heard sufficient opposition on that list, IMHO, that would merit holding up this proposed revision to the Baseline Requirements. I need two endorsers for a ballot. Thanks, Ben From: Ryan Sleevi [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, April 3, 2017 9:59 AM To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <[email protected]> Cc: Ben Wilson <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] RFC5280-related Ballot - For Discussion For those who want to understand why the IETF rejected this change, the thread begins at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pkix/MJwKL1lqRDuEAhqQ1Ydb5eWBSIs/?qid=ace7ed4844045716922706d6a80b0747 You can also see https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/376/ and the discussion at https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pkix/current/msg02361.html This was reviewed prior to the production of 5280 - that is, it was known at the time 5280 was produced, and was decided not to adopt - see https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pkix/current/msg02357.html and https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pkix/current/msg02336.html On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 11:22 AM, Ben Wilson via Public <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Here is a redlined version of sections 7.1.4.2.1 and 7.1.4.2.2 of the Baseline Requirements which proposes amendments to the way the Baseline Requirements handle the maximum length for subjectAltName, commonName and organizationName and also clarifies the use of the underscore character. Ben Wilson, JD, CISA, CISSP VP Compliance +1 801 701 9678<tel:(801)%20701-9678> _______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
