Gerv, There's another "bug" that I hope you'll consider clarifying regarding iodef records.
Part of the ballot says "CAs MUST process the issue, issuewild, and iodef property tags" Another part says " CAs... SHOULD dispatch reports of such issuance requests to the contact(s) stipulated in the CAA iodef record(s), if present." I assume you meant that CAs MUST dispatch reports to the contacts in iodef records, otherwise "processing" an iodef tag is the same as ignoring it. -Rick -----Original Message----- From: Public [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Gervase Markham via Public Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2017 2:31 AM To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <[email protected]> Cc: Gervase Markham <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Results on Ballot 187 - Make CAA Checking Mandatory Hi Kirk and all, On 08/03/17 22:00, Kirk Hall via Public wrote: > The voting period for Ballot 187 has ended. Here are the results. Thank you for tabulating these results; I'm very happy to see such a degree of final consensus on what is, I know, a controversial issue. I remain committed to making sure that some of the fears of some members about abuse of this technology do not come to pass. There is one small "bug" in the wording which was pointed out privately during the voting period, which I intend to fix in a quick ballot. At the moment the text says: "CAs MUST respect the critical flag and reject any unrecognized properties with this flag set." But this is not what should happen according to the CAA RFC. If there is an unrecognised property with the critical flag set, the CA should not just reject the property, they should fail closed. Here is an example of the problems one can get from trying to reproduce the intent and commands of an RFC in our documents, rather than just incorporating by reference :-) I propose replacing the above sentence with the more accurate: "CAs MUST respect the critical flag and not issue a certificate if they encounter an unrecognized property with this flag set." I will be preparing a ballot to this effect in the next few days. Without reopening any of the other controversial issues related to CAA, if anyone else has wording clarifications for this section, send me an email. Gerv _______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://clicktime.symantec.com/a/1/WULA2Rh9odR2mj96l9mX31LGHh9YsHfTykIccTeo_ t8=?d=nJMwwwlDP1-wZuB7ByWMR2d5gI6Rchl91wK-eEd8iNW_WnIlHVnWzs_O-ODh2wzumboNwF jqLgJwwiufUeOGhtRURCkF0tjH7AWI9jS8OXidr1rTrYS7hdMtZNDS7AFE3-6XYuHlyMQ-1AqKhi Vr1u82DS9kpeabT_2UwEjPVM903fw5LudE8v7If9yG4LbkeAhzcRGYuqyiA_yzVR-EV9dj9w2SK_ y5GdEmu434Urqq7fLGp7SySfsKvgLNiblhqnMVTGH1EAdqKOc8aAL_4RNa5-ZcwJRkmswxKnNgZ- CcDfP4Oeu5dVx77Zk5moLqBYeTIqTijkL9IqgN8CDFqGVIVx25Zf7LUuCy8jd10lcK2i0w6oOKWH -yrKMv7PTcNNQkS_Vn80YaYAcwE2QcukEmKP3O_EnrNgEkTesLA_A%3D&u=https%3A%2F%2Fcab forum.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpublic
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
