I think it would be helpful to have more clarity on what behavior this proposal is intended to prevent. With examples, if possible. It might make it easier to understand if anything ought to be done, and if so, what language would be most appropriate.
On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 4:54 PM Ben Wilson <[email protected]> wrote: > > As an initial edit, I am proposing that we add the following language as a > new subsection 6 to MRSP section 2.1 - "[CAs SHALL] provide services on a > non-discriminatory basis to all applicants who meet the requirements and > agree to abide by their obligations as specified in the CA's terms and > conditions". See > https://github.com/BenWilson-Mozilla/pkipolicy/commit/fab61408608feed365a9446ac47560a34c06cf85 > > On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 6:06 PM Ben Wilson <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> All, >> >> This email is the first in a series of discussions concerning the next >> version of the Mozilla Root Store Policy (MSRP), version 2.8, to be >> published in 2022. (See https://github.com/mozilla/pkipolicy/labels/2.8) >> >> Issue #129 in GitHub proposes that we add a policy of non-discrimination to >> the MRSP. >> >> This particular issue arose from discussions of whether CAs should be >> allowed to arbitrarily refuse to issue or to revoke certificates. (The >> situation involved an EV certificate for Stripe, Inc., of Kentucky, >> https://groups.google.com/g/mozilla.dev.security.policy/c/NjMmyA6MxN0/m/asxTGD3dCAAJ). >> Many of you argued that CAs should objectively and non-arbitrarily apply >> the issuance and revocation standards of the CA/Browser Forum. The full >> discussion can be read in the email thread referenced above, so I'll forego >> any attempt to recap. >> >> Potential policy language can be paraphrased from the suggestion made in >> Issue #129, which was to base language on ETSI 319 401--"Practices under >> which the CA operates SHALL be non-discriminatory. The CA SHALL make its >> services accessible to all applicants who meet the requirements and agree to >> abide by their obligations as specified in the CA's terms and conditions." >> Alternative wording might be something like, "Decisions not to issue or to >> revoke a certificate should be based on the unbiased application of the >> CA/Browser Forum's requirements using the objective criteria stated >> therein," OR "CAs shall apply the CA/Browser Forum’s issuance and revocation >> requirements in a non-arbitrary manner." >> Is a variation of the language above sufficient? What do you suggest as >> language? Should it be inserted somewhere in section 2 of the MRSP? >> >> Thoughts? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Ben > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "[email protected]" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/a/mozilla.org/d/msgid/dev-security-policy/CA%2B1gtabsOaZP88JXg5qP%2BGjZoAvc0n4_Y2Y%2B63KF94h2OoTDDQ%40mail.gmail.com. -- Josh Aas Executive Director Internet Security Research Group Let's Encrypt: A Free, Automated, and Open CA -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "[email protected]" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/mozilla.org/d/msgid/dev-security-policy/CAJH38kFChxs_xTCEC0Eiju2JPyhUhYscnYUX%3D1yB1qiCGC15CQ%40mail.gmail.com.
