Skip to content

SC65: Convert EVGs into RFC 3647 format v2 (#440) #493

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
barrini merged 5 commits into from
Apr 19, 2024
Merged

SC65: Convert EVGs into RFC 3647 format v2 (#440) #493

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
5f51db0
SC65: Convert EVGs into RFC 3647 format v2 (#440)
barrini Mar 15, 2024
d2b404b
Update EVG.md
barrini Mar 15, 2024
fe4be5f
Merge branch 'main' into SC65
barrini Apr 17, 2024
85af0d9
Update BR.md
barrini Apr 17, 2024
c236684
Update EVG.md
barrini Apr 17, 2024
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
12 changes: 7 additions & 5 deletions docs/BR.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -1,9 +1,11 @@
---
title: Baseline Requirements for the Issuance and Management of Publicly-Trusted TLS Server Certificates
subtitle: Version 2.0.3
subtitle: Version 2.0.4
author:
- CA/Browser Forum
date: 15-April-2024

date: 17-April-2024



copyright: |
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -136,7 +138,7 @@ The following Certificate Policy identifiers are reserved for use by CAs to asse
| 2.0.1 | SC63 | Make OCSP optional, require CRLs, and incentivize automation | 17-Aug-2023 | 15-Mar-2024 |
| 2.0.2 | SC66 | 2023 Cleanup | 23-Nov-2023 | 8-Jan-2024 |
| 2.0.3 | SC69 | Clarify router and firewall logging requirements | 13-March-2024 | 15-April-2024 |

| 2.0.4 | SC65 | Convert EVGs into RFC 3647 format | 15-March-2024 | 15-May-2024 |

\* Effective Date and Additionally Relevant Compliance Date(s)

Expand Down Expand Up @@ -767,7 +769,7 @@ Confirming the Applicant's control over the FQDN by confirming the presence of a
If a Random Value is used, the CA SHALL provide a Random Value unique to the Certificate request and SHALL not use the Random Value after

i. 30 days or
ii. if the Applicant submitted the Certificate request, the time frame permitted for reuse of validated information relevant to the Certificate (such as in [Section 4.2.1](#421-performing-identification-and-authentication-functions) of these Guidelines or Section 11.14.3 of the EV Guidelines).
ii. if the Applicant submitted the Certificate request, the time frame permitted for reuse of validated information relevant to the Certificate (such as in [Section 4.2.1](#421-performing-identification-and-authentication-functions) of these Guidelines or Section 3.2.2.14.3 of the EV Guidelines).

**Note**: Once the FQDN has been validated using this method, the CA MAY also issue Certificates for other FQDNs that end with all the Domain Labels of the validated FQDN. This method is suitable for validating Wildcard Domain Names.

Expand Down Expand Up @@ -2384,7 +2386,7 @@ For a Subscriber Certificate to be Extended Validation, it MUST comply with the

| __Field__ | __Requirements__ |
| -- | ------- |
| `subject` | See Guidelines for the Issuance and Management of Extended Validation Certificates, Section 9.2. |
| `subject` | See Guidelines for the Issuance and Management of Extended Validation Certificates, Section 7.1.4.2. |
| `certificatePolicies` | MUST be present. MUST assert the [Reserved Certificate Policy Identifier](#7161-reserved-certificate-policy-identifiers) of `2.23.140.1.1` as a `policyIdentifier`. See [Section 7.1.2.7.9](#71279-subscriber-certificate-certificate-policies). |
| All other extensions | See [Section 7.1.2.7.6](#71276-subscriber-certificate-extensions) and the Guidelines for the Issuance and Management of Extended Validation Certificates. |

Expand Down
Loading