I disagree. Revocation is the industry standard for cutting off issuance 
capability. In addition, there is no OneCRL for non-TLS, which means there's no 
other option on how you can define "technically not able to issue" other than 
revocation. If Mozilla wants to open OneCRL for all revoked intermediates that 
would change things, but, right now, revocation is the only way to do this.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On 
Behalf Of Hanno Böck
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2022 12:37 PM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Draft May 2022 CA Communication and Survey

On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 15:27:23 +0300
Dimitris Zacharopoulos <[email protected]> wrote:

> I believe the requirement does not include the disclosure of Revoked 
> subCAs as they are not /"technically capable of issuing working server 
> or email certificates"/.

I would like to point out that as far as I know very few implementations have 
strong revocation checks for intermediate certificates. I remember noticing 
that the OCSP for the Let's Encrypt intermediate was down, and for quite a 
while simply nobody noticed.

So I would very much dispute that revoked subcas are not "technically capable 
of issuing working server or email certificates".

--
Hanno Böck
https://hboeck.de/

--
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/20220624203654.34b68f20%40computer.

-- 
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/BYAPR14MB2600AF35A5C798CA25AD34C38EB49%40BYAPR14MB2600.namprd14.prod.outlook.com.

Reply via email to