You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The TLS BRs state in several locations: “CAs using this method MUST implement Multi-Perspective Issuance Corroboration as specified in Section 3.2.2.9. To count as corroborating, a Network Perspective MUST observe the same challenge information (i.e. Random Value or Request Token) as the Primary Network Perspective.”
It’s been my interpretation, that only sections and methods that include this text, need to follow the MPIC requirements, so that which we call “Constructed Email to Domain Contact” (3.2.2.4.4), does not. (Please correct me if I’m wrong on this interpretation).
However, when looking at the language that is included and quoted above, the “CAs using this method MUST implement Multi-Perspective Issuance Corroboration” bit, could be interpreted as “If you as a CA support this method, you need to implement MPIC on all DCV methods in the BRs”.
Having discussed with @ryancdickson, he's proposed we could update this to: Validations using this method MUST implement Multi-Perspective Issuance Corroboration as specified in Section 3.2.2.9. To count as corroborating, a Network Perspective MUST observe the same challenge information (i.e. Random Value or Request Token) as the Primary Network Perspective.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
The TLS BRs state in several locations: “CAs using this method MUST implement Multi-Perspective Issuance Corroboration as specified in Section 3.2.2.9. To count as corroborating, a Network Perspective MUST observe the same challenge information (i.e. Random Value or Request Token) as the Primary Network Perspective.”
It’s been my interpretation, that only sections and methods that include this text, need to follow the MPIC requirements, so that which we call “Constructed Email to Domain Contact” (3.2.2.4.4), does not. (Please correct me if I’m wrong on this interpretation).
However, when looking at the language that is included and quoted above, the “CAs using this method MUST implement Multi-Perspective Issuance Corroboration” bit, could be interpreted as “If you as a CA support this method, you need to implement MPIC on all DCV methods in the BRs”.
Having discussed with @ryancdickson, he's proposed we could update this to:
Validations using this method MUST implement Multi-Perspective Issuance Corroboration as specified in Section 3.2.2.9. To count as corroborating, a Network Perspective MUST observe the same challenge information (i.e. Random Value or Request Token) as the Primary Network Perspective.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: