This pink part into the HANDBOOK when it goes to DRAFT, not part of policy!<br/>
This way, the policy sets requirements and standards,<br/>
and AO is responsible for meeting them as a PRACTICE.
</p></center>
<p>
These steps are taken.
</p>
<h3> 3.1 Preliminaries </h3>
<ol><li>
<p>
The Member creates her account
and attempts to be assured by the routine face-to-face process.
</p>
</li><li>
<p>
Once determining that none are conveniently located,
the Member contacts an Assurer who is enabled to
conduct TTP-assisted assurances in the region.
</p>
</li><li>
<p>
The Assurer confirms that the Member
agrees to the CAcert Community Agreement (CCA),
including the Dispute Resolution Policy (DRP).
</p>
</li><li>
The Assurer confirms that standard Assurances do not meet
the needs of the Member.
This is only likely in areas not well-served with Assurers.
</p>
</li><li>
<p>
The Member and Assurer must negotiate the selection of TTPs
and the provision of adequate identification documents to the TTP.
Each TTP can only be used once (within one assurance for this Member).
</p>
<pclass="q">iang: this may suggest a Patch required to the system that permits the Assurer to check other TTP Assurances of the member.</p>
</li><li>
Assurer agrees to conduct the TTP-assisted Assurance,
and gives the Member a Token.
</li></ol>
<h3id="s3.2"> 3.2 Face-to-face meeting with the TTP </h3>
<ol><li>
<p>
The TTP and the Member meet face-to-face.
</p>
</li><li>
<p>
The TTP shall confirm that:
</p>
<oltype="a"><li>
The Member agrees to the CCA.
</li><li>
The Name and Date of Birth details recorded on the form
are matched by those in the identity documents.
</li><li>
The method (document type and issuer, not numbers)
by which the Name and DoB details are matched
is stated on the form.
</li><li>
Location of the meeting.
</li><li>
Contact details for the TTP
</li><li>
Assurer's Name and Token.
</li></ol>
</li><li>
<p>
The TTP shall use either the local form of document
(on CAcert's approved list), or a CAcert-provided form.
</p>
</li><li>
<p>
The TTP shall log the event by their customary means,
including the Assurer's Name and Verification Token.
</p>
<pclass="q">Old: leaving a Remote Assurance Form and copies of identity documents with the TTP for at least 60 days</p>
</li><li>
<p>
The paperwork is sent to the Assurer by the TTP.
</p>
<ulclass="q">
<li>Old: sending a Remote Assurance Form and copies of identity documents to the Assurer by mutually agreed medium (eg post, web form or encrypted email).</li>
<li>iang: this requirement was informed by <ahref="http://audit.cacert.org/svn/DRC/browser.php">DRCi</a> C.9.b:</li>
<blockquote><u>"RAs provide the CA with complete documentation on each verified applicant for a certificate."</u></blockquote>
<li>RA is registration authority which is a verifier of people who is outside the CA. For us, Assurers are our RAs.</li>
<li>What is different? In the old version of TTP, the TTP was the RA. Thus the criteria would require the TTP to send the form, not the Member.</li>
<li> However in the new TTP-assisted version of assurance, the Assurer is the RA, and the existing arrangement of the RA's documentation process (forms provided to Arbitrator) are workable. Also note responsibility laid out in 3.d, the TTP-assist assurer makes a <ahref="//wiki.cacert.org/CARS">CARS</a> of the Assurance Statement over the subject member. Ergo the Assurer is the RA, and is the responsible party.</li>
<li> Hence, the above point 5. is likely going to change. </li>
</ul>
</li></ol>
<h3id="s3.3"> 3.3 Completion of the Assurance </h3>
<ol><li>
<p>
The Assurer must confirm the assurance using the paperwork,
</p><p>
The Assurer must
be satisfied as to the identity and competency of the TTP
in identification procedures,
as though they were to be conducting the assurance themselves
</p>
<spanclass="q">
<p>iang: this clause would probably meet <ahref="http://audit.cacert.org/svn/DRC/browser.php">DRC</a> C.9.a:
<blockquote><u>"When the CA uses an external registration authority (RA), each RA is positively identified by CA personnel before being authorized to verify identities of subscribers and authorizations of individuals to represent organizational subscribers (see §A.2.v)."</u></blockquote>
For that reason, the above clause should be considered strongly,
and either discussed further in the Handbook, or include these
other Older suggestions:
<p>RA MUST authenticate the TTP to their satisfaction by:
</p>
<olstyle="list-style-type: lower-roman;">
<li>searching for their details in an appropriate, official public registry (eg government site, association registry, telephone book) </li>
<li>contacting the TTP using these details to verify their identity </li>
<li>verifying that the TTP is suitable in terms of meeting the requirements of this policy </li>
<li>verifying that the meeting did indeed take place and that the Assuree was adequately identified </li>
</ol>
</span><br/>
</i></blockquote>
</li><li>
The Assurer may contact the TTP, quoting Name and Verification Token.
</li><li>
On completion of the assurance, the Assurer
allocates standard full Assurance Points
(35 at time of writing)
to the Member.
Given the work involved, the Assurer should
strive to ensure that full points are allocated
by for example requesting any rework required.
<pclass="q">iang: this clause might be better off in the Handbook. Dominik+1</p>
Ian Grigg
14 years ago