GDCA votes YES to ballot 189.
原始邮件
发件人:Doug Beattie via [email protected]
收件人:CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion [email protected]
抄送:Doug [email protected]
发送时间:2017年4月10日(周一) 20:26
主题:Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 189 – Amend BR 6.1.7 to clarify signing by root keys is
in VOTING period (ends APRIL 13)
GlobalSign votes Yes to Ballot 189.
From: Public [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Kirk Hall via
Public
Sent: Sunday, April 9, 2017 7:30 PM
To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List [email protected]
Cc: Kirk Hall [email protected]
Subject: [cabfpub] Ballot 189 – Amend BR 6.1.7 to clarify signing by root keys
is in VOTING period (ends APRIL 13)
Reminder: Ballot 189 – Amend BR 6.1.7 to clarify signing by root keys - is in
the voting period (ends APRIL 13).
Ballot 189 - Amend Section 6.1.7 of Baseline Requirements
The following motion has been proposed by Dimitris Zacharopoulos of HARICA and
endorsed by Bruce Morton of Entrust and Jeremy Rowley of Digicert
Background:
Section 6.1.7 of the Baseline Requirements states that the Root CA Private Keys
MUST NOT be used to sign end-entity certificates, with some exceptions. It is
unclear if this exception list includes end-entity certificates with EKU
id-kp-timeStamping. This ballot attempts to clarify two things:
that it affects Root Keys in a hierarchy that issues SSL Certificates and that
it does not include time stamping certificates in the exception list.
It also clears the exception language for 1024-bit RSA Subscriber Certificates
and testing products with Certificates issued by a Root.
-- MOTION BEGINS --
Current section 6.1.7
Root CA Private Keys MUST NOT be used to sign Certificates except in the
following cases:
Self-signed Certificates to represent the Root Certificate itself; Certificates
for Subordinate CAs and Cross Certificates; Certificates for infrastructure
purposes (e.g. administrative role certificates, internal CA operational device
certificates, and OCSP Response verification Certificates); Certificates issued
solely for the purpose of testing products with Certificates issued by a Root
CA; and Subscriber Certificates, provided that:
The Root CA uses a 1024-bit RSA signing key that was created prior to the
Effective Date; The Applicant’s application was deployed prior to the Effective
Date; The Applicant’s application is in active use by the Applicant or the CA
uses a documented process to establish that the Certificate’s use is required
by a substantial number of Relying Parties; The CA follows a documented process
to determine that the Applicant’s application poses no known security risks to
Relying Parties; The CA documents that the Applicant’s application cannot be
patched or replaced without substantial economic outlay. The CA signs the
Subscriber Certificate on or before June 30, 2016; and The notBefore field in
the Subscriber Certificate has a date on or before June 30, 2016
Proposed section 6.1.7
Private Keys corresponding to Root Certificates MUST NOT be used to sign
Certificates except in the following cases:
Self-signed Certificates to represent the Root CA itself; Certificates for
Subordinate CAs and Cross Certificates; Certificates for infrastructure
purposes (administrative role certificates, internal CA operational device
certificates) Certificates for OCSP Response verification;
These changes become Effective 30 days after the ballot passes.
-- MOTION ENDS --
The procedure for this ballot is as follows (exact start and end times may be
adjusted to comply with applicable Bylaws and IPR Agreement):
BALLOT 189 Status: Amend BR 6.1.7
Start time (22:00 UTC)
End time (22:00 UTC)
Discussion (7 days)
30 March 2017
6 April 2017
Vote for approval (7 days)
6 April 2017
13 April 2017
If vote approves ballot: Review Period (Chair to send Review Notice) (30 days)
If Exclusion Notice(s) filed, ballot approval is rescinded and PAG to be
created.
If no Exclusion Notices filed, ballot becomes effective at end of Review
Period.
Votes must be cast by posting an on-list reply to this thread on the Public
Mail List.
Upon filing of Review Notice by Chair
30 days after filing of Review Notice by Chair
From Bylaw 2.3: If the Draft Guideline Ballot is proposing a Final Maintenance
Guideline, such ballot will include a redline or comparison showing the set of
changes from the Final Guideline section(s) intended to become a Final
Maintenance Guideline, and need not include a copy of the full set of
guidelines. Such redline or comparison shall be made against the Final
Guideline section(s) as they exist at the time a ballot is proposed, and need
not take into consideration other ballots that may be proposed subsequently,
except as provided in Bylaw Section 2.3(j).
Votes must be cast by posting an on-list reply to this thread on the Public
list. A vote in favor of the motion must indicate a clear 'yes' in the
response. A vote against must indicate a clear 'no' in the response. A vote to
abstain must indicate a clear 'abstain' in the response. Unclear responses will
not be counted. The latest vote received from any representative of a voting
member before the close of the voting period will be counted. Voting members
are listed here: https://cabforum.org/members/
In order for the motion to be adopted, two thirds or more of the votes cast by
members in the CA category and greater than 50% of the votes cast by members in
the browser category must be in favor. Quorum is shown on CA/Browser Forum
wiki. Under Bylaw 2.2(g), at least the required quorum number must participate
in the ballot for the ballot to be valid, either by voting in favor, voting
against, or abstaining.
_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
[email protected]
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
