CA/Browser Forum posts
Ballot 34 – Adopt EV Guidelines draft 03 as Version 1.2
October 1, 2009 by Ben WilsonBallot 34 – Adopt EV Guidelines draft 03 as Version 1.2 (Passed) Motion Nick Hales made the following motion, and Bjorn Vermo and Ben Wilson endorsed it: Motion begins The Forum should adopt, with immediate effect, the document entitled “Guidelines For The Issuance And Management Of Extended Validation Certificates, Version 1.2, Draft 03” as Version 1.2 of the EV Guidelines. The document was circulated for review on 20 Aug 2009. The editor may update the document and release further versions to reflect the consensus of the members as it emerges from discussions during the review period.
October 1, 2009 by Ben WilsonBallot 34 – Adopt EV Guidelines draft 03 as Version 1.2 (Passed) Motion Nick Hales made the following motion, and Bjorn Vermo and Ben Wilson endorsed it: Motion begins The Forum should adopt, with immediate effect, the document entitled “Guidelines For The Issuance And Management Of Extended Validation Certificates, Version 1.2, Draft 03” as Version 1.2 of the EV Guidelines. The document was circulated for review on 20 Aug 2009. The editor may update the document and release further versions to reflect the consensus of the members as it emerges from discussions during the review period.
Ballot 30 – Reserved Domain Names
August 7, 2009 by Ben WilsonBallot 30 – Reserved Domain Names (Failed) Motion Ben Wilson made the following motion, and Eddy Nigg and Bruce Morton endorsed it. Motion begins Effective 90 days following ratification of the ballot, the Guidelines should be amended by the following errata. Errata begin Delete Section 6(a)(2) and replace it with: “(2) Domain name Certificate Field subjectAlternativeName:dNSName Required/Optional Required Contents There MUST be at least one instance of this field that is associated with the Subject’s server(s), which MAY be owned and operated by the Subject or another entity (e.
August 7, 2009 by Ben WilsonBallot 30 – Reserved Domain Names (Failed) Motion Ben Wilson made the following motion, and Eddy Nigg and Bruce Morton endorsed it. Motion begins Effective 90 days following ratification of the ballot, the Guidelines should be amended by the following errata. Errata begin Delete Section 6(a)(2) and replace it with: “(2) Domain name Certificate Field subjectAlternativeName:dNSName Required/Optional Required Contents There MUST be at least one instance of this field that is associated with the Subject’s server(s), which MAY be owned and operated by the Subject or another entity (e.
Ballot 31 – Allow ETSI 102 042
August 6, 2009 by Ben WilsonBallot 31 – Allow ETSI 102 042 (Passed) Motion Iñigo Barreira has made the following motion, and Bjorn Vermo and Tom Albertson have endorsed it: Motion begins On page 3, replace: “Other groups that have participated in the process of developing these Guidelines include members of the Information Security Committee of the American Bar Association Section of Science & Technology Law, and WebTrust for CA. Participation by such groups does not imply their endorsement, recommendation or approval of the final product.
August 6, 2009 by Ben WilsonBallot 31 – Allow ETSI 102 042 (Passed) Motion Iñigo Barreira has made the following motion, and Bjorn Vermo and Tom Albertson have endorsed it: Motion begins On page 3, replace: “Other groups that have participated in the process of developing these Guidelines include members of the Information Security Committee of the American Bar Association Section of Science & Technology Law, and WebTrust for CA. Participation by such groups does not imply their endorsement, recommendation or approval of the final product.
Ballot 33- Subject Attribute Requirements
August 4, 2009 by Ben WilsonBallot 33- Subject Attribute Requirements (Passed Unanimously) Motion Steve Roylance made the following motion, and Johnathan Nightingale and Jay Schiavo endorsed it: Motion begins The Guidelines should be amended by the following erratum. Erratum begins Delete the following paragraph from Section 6. EV Certificate Content Requirements This section sets forth minimum requirements for the content of the EV Certificate as they relate to the identity of the CA and the Subject of the EV Certificate.
August 4, 2009 by Ben WilsonBallot 33- Subject Attribute Requirements (Passed Unanimously) Motion Steve Roylance made the following motion, and Johnathan Nightingale and Jay Schiavo endorsed it: Motion begins The Guidelines should be amended by the following erratum. Erratum begins Delete the following paragraph from Section 6. EV Certificate Content Requirements This section sets forth minimum requirements for the content of the EV Certificate as they relate to the identity of the CA and the Subject of the EV Certificate.
Ballot 32 – Revocation for Well-Known Private Key
July 29, 2009 by Ben WilsonBallot 32 – Revocation for Well-Known Private Key (Passed Unanimously) Motion Bruce Morton made the following motion, and Eddy Nigg and Nick Hales endorsed it: Motion begins The Guidelines should be amended by the following erratum. Erratum begins Delete the following paragraph from Section 27(b)3 of the Guidelines for the Processing of Extended Validation Certificates v1.1: “The CA obtains reasonable evidence that the Subscriber’s Private Key (corresponding to the Public Key in the EV Certificate) has been compromised, or that the EV Certificate has otherwise been misused;”
July 29, 2009 by Ben WilsonBallot 32 – Revocation for Well-Known Private Key (Passed Unanimously) Motion Bruce Morton made the following motion, and Eddy Nigg and Nick Hales endorsed it: Motion begins The Guidelines should be amended by the following erratum. Erratum begins Delete the following paragraph from Section 27(b)3 of the Guidelines for the Processing of Extended Validation Certificates v1.1: “The CA obtains reasonable evidence that the Subscriber’s Private Key (corresponding to the Public Key in the EV Certificate) has been compromised, or that the EV Certificate has otherwise been misused;”
Ballot 29 – Guidelines Renumbering
July 14, 2009 by Ben WilsonBallot 29 – Guidelines Renumbering (Passed) Motion Tim Moses has made the following motion, and Bjorn Vermo and Nick Hales have endorsed it: Motion begins Effective upon ratification of Version 1.2, the Guidelines should be renumbered in accordance with the following table. Proposed section number -> Current section label Front matter -> Front matter, A.1.(c) Guidelines Issuing Authority, A.1.(d) Revisions to Guidelines paras 1 and 2 ToC -> ToC Scope -> A.
July 14, 2009 by Ben WilsonBallot 29 – Guidelines Renumbering (Passed) Motion Tim Moses has made the following motion, and Bjorn Vermo and Nick Hales have endorsed it: Motion begins Effective upon ratification of Version 1.2, the Guidelines should be renumbered in accordance with the following table. Proposed section number -> Current section label Front matter -> Front matter, A.1.(c) Guidelines Issuing Authority, A.1.(d) Revisions to Guidelines paras 1 and 2 ToC -> ToC Scope -> A.
Ballot 28 – Membership Criteria
June 8, 2009 by Ben WilsonBallot 28 – Membership Criteria (Failed Quorum) Motion Tim Moses has made the following motion, and Ben Wilson and Moudrick Dadashov have endorsed it: Motion begins The Forum should adopt the following membership criteria immediately upon successful completion of the ballot. Membership criteria, CA / Browser Forum Version 06 Voting members of the CA/Browser Forum shall meet at least one of the following criteria. Issuing CA:- The member organization operates a certification authority that has a current and successful WebTrust for CAs audit, or ETSI 102042 or ETSI 101456 audit report prepared by a properly-qualified auditor, and that actively issues certificates to Web servers that are openly accessible from the Internet using any one of the mainstream browsers.
June 8, 2009 by Ben WilsonBallot 28 – Membership Criteria (Failed Quorum) Motion Tim Moses has made the following motion, and Ben Wilson and Moudrick Dadashov have endorsed it: Motion begins The Forum should adopt the following membership criteria immediately upon successful completion of the ballot. Membership criteria, CA / Browser Forum Version 06 Voting members of the CA/Browser Forum shall meet at least one of the following criteria. Issuing CA:- The member organization operates a certification authority that has a current and successful WebTrust for CAs audit, or ETSI 102042 or ETSI 101456 audit report prepared by a properly-qualified auditor, and that actively issues certificates to Web servers that are openly accessible from the Internet using any one of the mainstream browsers.
Ballot 27 – Alternatives for Verifying Domain Control
May 26, 2009 by Ben WilsonBallot 27 – Alternatives for Verifying Domain Control (Rejected) Motion Steve Roylance made the following motion, and Bruce Morton and Bjørn Vermo endorsed it: Motion begins The Guidelines should be amended by the following erratum. Erratum begins Replace 18(b)(2)(B): (B) In cases where the registered domain holder cannot be contacted, the CA MUST: (1) Rely on a Verified Legal Opinion to the effect that Applicant has the exclusive right to use the specified domain name in identifying itself on the Internet, and
May 26, 2009 by Ben WilsonBallot 27 – Alternatives for Verifying Domain Control (Rejected) Motion Steve Roylance made the following motion, and Bruce Morton and Bjørn Vermo endorsed it: Motion begins The Guidelines should be amended by the following erratum. Erratum begins Replace 18(b)(2)(B): (B) In cases where the registered domain holder cannot be contacted, the CA MUST: (1) Rely on a Verified Legal Opinion to the effect that Applicant has the exclusive right to use the specified domain name in identifying itself on the Internet, and
Ballot 25 – PolicyQualifierld
April 6, 2009 by Ben WilsonBallot 25 – PolicyQualifierld Motion Mads Henriksveen made the following motion, and Tim Moses and Robin Alden endorsed it: Motion begins Effective upon ratification of the ballot, the Guidelines should be amended by the following erratum. Erratum begins Replace this text from Appendix B, Section 2a: ” certificatePolicies:policyQualifiers:policyQualifierId • id-qt 2 ” with: ” certificatePolicies:policyQualifiers:policyQualifierId • id-qt 1 ” Erratum ends Motion ends The ballot review period comes into effect at 2100 UTC on 23 Mar 09 and will close at 2100 UTC on 30 Mar 2009.
April 6, 2009 by Ben WilsonBallot 25 – PolicyQualifierld Motion Mads Henriksveen made the following motion, and Tim Moses and Robin Alden endorsed it: Motion begins Effective upon ratification of the ballot, the Guidelines should be amended by the following erratum. Erratum begins Replace this text from Appendix B, Section 2a: ” certificatePolicies:policyQualifiers:policyQualifierId • id-qt 2 ” with: ” certificatePolicies:policyQualifiers:policyQualifierId • id-qt 1 ” Erratum ends Motion ends The ballot review period comes into effect at 2100 UTC on 23 Mar 09 and will close at 2100 UTC on 30 Mar 2009.
Ballot 26 – Certificate Reissuance
March 17, 2009 by Ben WilsonBallot 26 – Certificate Reissuance (Passed Unanimously) Motion Steve Roylance made the following motion, and Ben Wilson and Jay Schiavo endorsed it: Motion begins The Guidelines should be amended by the following erratum. Erratum begins Replace this section which was itself previously amended by Errata: “25. EV Certificate Renewal Verification Requirements (a) Validation for Renewal Requests. In conjunction with the EV Certificate Renewal process, the CA MUST perform all authentication and verification tasks required by these Guidelines to ensure that the renewal request is properly authorized by Applicant and that the information in the EV Certificate is still accurate and valid.
March 17, 2009 by Ben WilsonBallot 26 – Certificate Reissuance (Passed Unanimously) Motion Steve Roylance made the following motion, and Ben Wilson and Jay Schiavo endorsed it: Motion begins The Guidelines should be amended by the following erratum. Erratum begins Replace this section which was itself previously amended by Errata: “25. EV Certificate Renewal Verification Requirements (a) Validation for Renewal Requests. In conjunction with the EV Certificate Renewal process, the CA MUST perform all authentication and verification tasks required by these Guidelines to ensure that the renewal request is properly authorized by Applicant and that the information in the EV Certificate is still accurate and valid.