- From: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 09:13:20 +0100
- To: Johnathan Nightingale <johnath@mozilla.com>
- Cc: Mary Ellen Zurko <Mary_Ellen_Zurko@notesdev.ibm.com>, "Yngve N. Pettersen" <yngve@opera.com>, public-wsc-wg@w3.org
On 2008-03-25 21:49:46 -0400, Johnathan Nightingale wrote: >> <p>To derive a human-readable name from an AAC, user agents >> MUST use the first of the following fields that is human-readable:</p> >> >> <olist> >> <item>the Subject's Common Name (CN) attribute;</item> > ... >> >> <item>the Subject's Organizational Unit (OU) attribute, in >> combination with its Location (L) attribute;</item> >> <item>the Subject's Organization (O) attribute.</item> >> </olist> > > This seems like the inverse of intended order. To take Sierra Nevada > Brewing's EV certificate as an example (https://www.sierranevada.com/): ok, in that case I simply misread Yngve's mail -- I had understood "in order of priority" to be "most important first"; happy to turn that around. > Accordingly, it seems to me that the order should be O, then CN, > and honestly I'd leave OU out of it, but feel free to slot it in > somewhere if you think it appropriate. I don't actually care either way, but would like to hear from Yngve before dropping that one. >> <p>All Augmented Assurance Certificates MUST include >> information that lets this algorithm terminate successfully, >> i.e., return human-readable information.</p> > I don't think we have it in our scope to offer normative language on how CAs > issue certificates, (nor would we want to, I suspect) In general, I'd agree. However, I do think it's appropriate to spell out fundamental assumptions in terms of conformance clauses, e.g. in this case. > so this should probably read in terms of our own internal > definition. E.g. > <p>By definition, an Augmented Assurance Certificate will include > information that lets this algorithm terminate successfully, i.e. > return human-readable information.</p> > (Possibly with appropriate tweaks to our definitions section, as well). The trouble I have with this is that we have users or site administrators possibly designating trust roots as being AA / EV. So it is presumably worth spelling out a requirement on those who generate certificates that they want to market to these administrators as being EV certificates. Of course, we can also add the implementation flip side, e.g.: If the algorithm does not lead to human-readable information, user agents MAY consider a certificate to be a usual validated certificate, not an Augmented Assurance certificate, even if it chains up to a <termref def="id-augmented-qualified">AA-qualified</termref> trust root. Cheers, -- Thomas Roessler, W3C <tlr@w3.org>
Received on Wednesday, 26 March 2008 08:26:31 UTC