The fact that we have different groups all waiting on the others to act is precisely the source of my frustration here.
I think Gerv’s suggestion of a motion on intent is the way to get out of the deadlock. We can even specify criteria that would need to be met before adoption was likely to take place. That then provides material that can be cited by CAs issuing RFPs for future HSMs, etc. This is how government processes work. In the UK/EU there is a green paper that proposes a course of action and then a white paper that specifies more detail which may lead to a bill in parliament enacting the change. > On Feb 24, 2017, at 2:14 PM, Ryan Sleevi <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 9:58 AM, [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Well as it happens, that is not a problem. > > * There is a set of FIPS requirements and testing regimes etc. for SHA-3 > * There are HSMs that have met those requirements. > > What is a concern related to HSMs is that the transition is widely supported > so CAs do not have to make major changes to their infrastructure or change > suppliers or use different hardware for SHA-3 certificates. > > The availability of HSMs is a concern but it is actually the very last but > one on the critical path which is at present > > * NIST issues FIPS (done) > * IETF publishes specification (started on this) > * CABForum amends guidelines to permit use > * Browsers add support > * HSM vendors ship product > * CAs issue certificates. > > As indicated before, I believe you have critically misordered these > requirements, which may be the source of our disagreement. I do not expect > you to agree, but I hope you can understand why, from my perspective, the > order is: > > * NIST issues FIPS (done) > * IETF publishes specification (started on this) > * HSM vendors ship product > * CABForum amends guidelines to permit use > * Browsers add support > * CAs issue certificates. > > That is, I see the HSM discussion happening in parallel to permitting, but I > see both as blocking for browsers adding support. > > The issue is irrelevant. > > We will disagree, then, and given the remainder of the mail, it's perhaps > best that you and I stop talking about this, as we recognize our disagreement. >
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
