ISSUE-102

What should be our notion of "EV" certificates?

State:

CLOSED

Product:

wsc-xit

Raised by:

Thomas Roessler

Opened on:

2007-08-12

Description:

This issue tries to capture the discussion at [1] and [2]; related to ISSUE-97.

The current state of affairs defines extended validation certificates by way of out-of-band qualification (essentially, a list of qualified trust anchors), coupled with a list of trust anchor specific extension OIDs, per [1], and adherence to the CAB forum guidelines. In [2], we see a demand to abstract away from the specific EV guidelines, and trigger EV like behavior through just qualification -- and maybe a public OID.

The questions for the group that will need to be resolved include:

- Should we endorse the CAB forum notion of EV certificates, or rather define
a certain "enhanced behavior" that is triggered under certain conditions?

- Should we demand a standardized OID to trigger such EV-like behavior?

This relates to ISSUE-97, which asks the more specific question under what conditions display of logotypes should be triggered.

1. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wsc-wg/2007Aug/0085.html
2. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wsc-wg/2007Jul/0301.html

Related Actions Items:

No related actions

Related emails:

1. Meeting record: WSC WG f2f 2007-10-03 (from tlr@w3.org on 2007-10-25)
2. Draft Minutes: WSC WG face-to-face 2007-10-03 (from tlr@w3.org on 2007-10-10)
3. Re: Draft Minutes: WSC WG face-to-face 2007-10-03 (from ifette@google.com on 2007-10-09)
4. RE: ISSUE-97: Should logotypes be tied to EV certificates?[Techniques] (from michael.mccormick@wellsfargo.com on 2007-08-13)
5. Re: ISSUE-97: Should logotypes be tied to EV certificates? [Techniques] (from tlr@w3.org on 2007-08-12)
6. ISSUE-102: What should be our notion of 'EV' certificates? [Techniques] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2007-08-12)

Related notes:

Display change log