Ideally, all definitions used in various CA/B Forum documents should be
used consistently and with the same description. At some point, we will
have to update the bylaws again, to include the new ETSI standards, or
refer to the BRs for these standards. Unfortunately, it is not easy to
update all documents at once.
Right now, the effort is to update the BRs (a pre-ballot was sent out by
Ben on January 19th) where the "Issuing CA" definition is revised. I
think the "Issuing CA", as described in the bylaws, matches the
"Subordinate CA" definition of the BRs. The updated definition proposed
by the pre-ballot is:
"Subordinate CA: A Certification Authority in possession or control of
the Private Key associated with a Subordinate CA Certificate. A
Subordinate CA is either an Externally Operated Subordinate CA or an
Internally Operated Subordinate CA".
Perhaps the next "big task" for the policy review WG would be to scan
all CABF documents, ensure the definitions are used consistently and
identify duplicate and redundant information especially between the BRs
and EVG. Duplicate information could be replaced with references to the
BRs which would result in updating information in one place only.
Dimitris.
On 31/1/2017 9:01 μμ, Kirk Hall wrote:
Ben and Dimitris - is this something the Policy Working Group wants to address
in its proposal relating to the uses of the term CA?
-----Original Message-----
From: Public [mailto:public-boun...@cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Dean Coclin via
Public
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 7:37 AM
To: realsky(CHT) <real...@cht.com.tw>; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List
<public@cabforum.org>
Cc: Dean Coclin <dean_coc...@symantec.com>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] An inconsistency for "Issuing CA" in BYLAWS and SSL BR
I don’t believe these need to be consistent as they serve 2 different purposes.
One is for membership while the other is a technical reference.
-----Original Message-----
From: Public [mailto:public-boun...@cabforum.org] On Behalf Of realsky(CHT) via
Public
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 9:22 AM
To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public@cabforum.org>
Cc: realsky(CHT) <real...@cht.com.tw>
Subject: [cabfpub] An inconsistency for "Issuing CA" in BYLAWS and SSL BR
For survey Ballot 183, I found there is an inconsistency for "Issuing CA" in
BYLAWS of The CA/Browser Forum version 1.4 and SSL BR V1.4.2.
In BYLAWS of The CA/Browser Forum version 1.4,
2.1 Qualifying for Forum Membership
(a) CA/Browser Forum members shall meet at least one of the following criteria.
(1) Issuing CA: The member organization operates a certification authority that
has a current and successful WebTrust for CAs audit, or ETSI 102042 or ETSI
101456 audit report prepared by a properly-qualified auditor, and that actively
issues certificates to Web servers that are openly accessible from the Internet
using a browser created by a Browser member. Applicants that are not actively
issuing certificates but otherwise meet membership criteria may be granted
Associate Member status under Bylaw Sec. 3.1 for a period of time to be
designated by the Forum.
(2) Root CA: The member organization operates a certification authority that
has a current and successful WebTrust for CAs, or ETSI 102042 or ETSI 101456
audit report prepared by a properly-qualified auditor, and that actively issues
certificates to subordinate CAs that, in turn, actively issue certificates to
Web servers that are openly accessible from the Internet using a browser
created by a Browser member.
Applicants that are not actively issuing certificates but otherwise meet
membership criteria may be granted Associate Member status under Bylaw Sec. 3.1
for a period of time to be designated by the Forum.
But in 1.6.1 Definitions of SSL Baseline Requirement Version 1.4.2,
Issuing CA: In relation to a particular Certificate, the CA that issued the
Certificate. This could be either a Root CA or a Subordinate CA.
Sincerely Yours,
Li-Chun Chen
Chunghwa Telecom Co. Ltd.
本信件可能包含中華電信股份有限公司機密資訊,非指定之收件者,請勿蒐集、處理或利用本信件內容,並請銷毀此信件.
如為指定收件者,應確實保護郵件中本公司之營業機密及個人資料,不得任意傳佈或揭露,並應自行確認本郵件之附檔與超連結之安全性,以共同善盡資訊安全與個資保護責任.
Please be advised that this email message (including any attachments) contains
confidential information and may be legally privileged. If you are not the
intended recipient, please destroy this message and all attachments from your
system and do not further collect, process, or use them. Chunghwa Telecom and
all its subsidiaries and associated companies shall not be liable for the
improper or incomplete transmission of the information contained in this email
nor for any delay in its receipt or damage to your system. If you are the
intended recipient, please protect the confidential and/or personal information
contained in this email with due care. Any unauthorized use, disclosure or
distribution of this message in whole or in part is strictly prohibited. Also,
please self-inspect attachments and hyperlinks contained in this email to
ensure the information security and to protect personal information.
_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
Public@cabforum.org
https://clicktime.symantec.com/a/1/2ap85654Mc5bTRpYvVifWO4iY5lFGWJEKTwH1qfxm04=?d=WN3sS69LcXVlwVQ5JMYf6YATNyIGZ1UhWdJz3hCELlT2-4b2fNZHN6nKzmCWJTZiRUWAVhGNIqXFOhqLrGSwOa9e3gS6OfnRdyBrcc-EXHOKA6VIBgQc93809oF-z8LZWaI8dzS5OcMYCNSUF-XQCZ8KOWPctUZKZSzhzKTi4rNPTnimUusFLNFdD1nuvgSC7ivhngS8On7fGXQ5MQZ9hSMUm9NZTRFBsOVS2A3FR1vcC0nYohNgEYsDDrCoKyGg8rVw2CpROYpLUdvKOO_1fd4vzD2iJjRYgV_0zbtcj-fibxiT4nc-Uf5Xi8-PvaZE4Psx5YbG1Jtn3fc0jSxk5kPvDXILoqzW6cpzykYhlMVKYJsezCBmGQ04GtgcjtssvRzF_6EqgyTcTVs8jDynEEYrZ4w4&u=https%3A%2F%2Fcabforum.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpublic
_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
Public@cabforum.org
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
Public@cabforum.org
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
