+1. I’d prefer not to explicitly state after-ballot applicability as doing so raises the question the question for all future ballots. If we were going to add language about applicability, the language should be in the scope section and broadly state that the BRs only apply to certificates issued after the effective date of the latest version. (Note, I am not proposing this)
From: Public [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ryan Sleevi via Public Sent: Thursday, May 4, 2017 1:30 PM To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <[email protected]> Cc: Ryan Sleevi <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] [EXT] Re: Ballot 199 - Require commonName in Root and Intermediate Certificates Kirk raised that, but it does not seem to be a founded concern. 1) That requirement applies to all certificates issued against the current BRs 2) The BRs do not retroactively invalidate - or, especially in the case of Ballot 197 - approve - certificate issuance. A CA has always and only been obligated to state compliance with the in-force BRs with respect to issuance and its activities. On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 3:27 PM, Steve Medin via Public <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: Gerv, could we also request explicit forward-looking language? Kirk raised the concern about whether this applies to existing roots and intermediates. We have a root issued in 1997 that does not have a common name. Some interpretations have been discussed, but we would strongly prefer that this be written into this change for clear future interpretations. If I may: 7.1.4.3. Subject Information – Root Certificates and Subordinate CA Certificates When issuing a Root Certificate or Subordinate CA Certificate, the CA represents that it followed the procedure set forth in its Certificate Policy and/or Certification Practice Statement to verify that, as of the Certificate’s issuance date, all of the Subject Information was accurate and included the content required by this section. From: Public [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> ] On Behalf Of Ben Wilson via Public Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2017 11:21 AM To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Cc: Ben Wilson <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: [EXT] Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 199 - Require commonName in Root and Intermediate Certificates Two questions, Gerv. 1 - Does this ballot rule out “vanity CAs” – CAs with customer names in the subject field, even though the key is held by the root CA? (I can provide further clarification, and/or examples, if necessary. 2- What is the full current wording of Ballot 199? Thanks, Ben From: Public [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Gervase Markham via Public Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 9:03 AM To: CABFPub <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Cc: Gervase Markham <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: [cabfpub] Ballot 199 - Require commonName in Root and Intermediate Certificates Ballot 199 - Require commonName in Root and Intermediate Certificates Purpose of Ballot: Section 7.1.4.3 of the BRs, which deals with Subject Information for Subordinate CA Certificates, currently requires only that all information in a Subordinate CA Certificate is accurate; it does not say what information is required. Some of the necessary information is required elsewhere in the BRs, but it is not complete - commonName is missing. If commonName is omitted, DN clashes can more easily occur. So this motion centralises that information in the obvious place, and adds a commonName requirement. The following motion has been proposed by Gervase Markham of Mozilla and endorsed by Patrick Tronnier of OATI and Ryan Sleevi of Google: -- MOTION BEGINS -- Make the following changes to the Baseline Requirements: * Delete 7.1.2.1 (e), which currently defines the Subject Information required in a Root CA Certificate. * Delete 7.1.2.2 (h), which currently defines the Subject Information required in a Subordinate CA Certificate. * Rename section 7.1.4.2, currently titled "Subject Information", to "Subject Information - Subscriber Certificates". * Rename section 7.1.4.3, currently titled "Subject Information - Subordinate CA Certificates" to "Subject Information - Root Certificates and Subordinate CA Certificates". * Based on the style used in 7.1.4.2.2 and the content from the now-deleted 7.1.2.1 (e) and 7.1.2.2 (h), add the following section 7.1.4.3.1: 7.1.4.3.1 Subject Distinguished Name Fields Certificate Field: subject:commonName (OID 2.5.4.3) Required/Optional: Required Contents: This field MUST be present and the contents MUST be an identifier for the certificate such that the certificate's Name is unique across all certificates issued by the issuing certificate. b. Certificate Field: subject:organizationName (OID 2.5.4.10) Required/Optional: Required Contents: This field MUST be present and the contents MUST contain either the Subject CA’s name or DBA as verified under Section 3.2.2.2. The CA may include information in this field that differs slightly from the verified name, such as common variations or abbreviations, provided that the CA documents the difference and any abbreviations used are locally accepted abbreviations; e.g., if the official record shows “Company Name Incorporated”, the CA MAY use “Company Name Inc.” or “Company Name”. c. Certificate Field: subject:countryName (OID: 2.5.4.6) Required/Optional: Required Contents: This field MUST contain the two‐letter ISO 3166‐1 country code for the country in which the CA’s place of business is located. -- MOTION ENDS -- The procedure for approval of this Final Maintenance Guideline ballot is as follows (exact start and end times may be adjusted to comply with applicable Bylaws and IPR Agreement): BALLOT 199 Status: Final Maintenance Guideline Start time (23:00 UTC) End time (23:00 UTC) Discussion (7 to 14 days) 25 Apr 2 May Vote for approval (7 days) 2 May 9 May 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. 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] <mailto:[email protected]> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
