Somehow this has become very complex, and I have to say I don’t understand what you are asking. I thought “the CA’s audits” was pretty clear and covered everything.
I will leave it to Gerv to choose whatever wording he prefers. From: Ryan Sleevi [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2017 8:10 PM To: Kirk Hall <[email protected]>; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL]Re: [cabfpub] Updating DTP definition Kirk, Would you agree that your proposed wording introduces the issue that is avoided by the current wording, which is that a CA can easily misread this to suggest that, say, if the DTP is covered under the "WebTrust for CAs" audit, it need not necessarily be covered under the "WebTrust for CAs - SSL Baseline w/ Net Sec" - even though the activities of the DTP mean it should? I understand your goal with the plurality, but the problem is that it introduces an ambiguity as to the necessity of the relevant audits. Hopefully you can see why more specificity helps avoid this otherwise unnecessary ambiguity (that being covered under 'an' audit is sufficient). Similarly, consider the inverse - if there is a DTP who performs, say, datacenter activities, do you believe there are principles and criteria captured in the "WebTrust for CAs - SSL Baseline w/ NetSec" that would be relevant/necessary for audit? Or would you agree that, depending on the scope and role of the datacenter provider, it may be that the only criteria and controls are captured within the "WebTrust for CAs" criteria. Obviously, I use a bias towards WebTrust here, if only because the split is more obvious and apparent than the ETSI equivalents, and hopefully, it's one you're more familiar with, thus making it easier to see the problems with the proposed wording change. On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 6:21 PM, Kirk Hall via Public <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Gerv, first thanks for doing this – it helps. Second – I’m still thinking about the text of the addition. You propose “and whose activities are not within the scope of the appropriate CA audits”. We discussed briefly at the meeting, and I know what you mean by the phrase and agree with it. The definition has two references to “the CA”, so I’m wondering if we should just use “the CA’s” in the new language you would add. So the change would be as follows: Delegated Third Party: A natural person or Legal Entity that is not the CA, and whose activities are not within the scope of the appropriate CA’s audits, but is authorized by the CA to assist in the Certificate Management Process by performing or fulfilling one or more of the CA requirements found herein. What do you think? I worry that including “appropriate” could create potential ambiguity as to which audits are the “appropriate” ones for this definition. Saying “the CA’s audits” should cover all the CA’s audits. (If the DTP’s activities are not examined in a particular audit because of the nature of the audit, they are still within the “scope” of that audit.) From: Public [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of Gervase Markham via Public Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2017 4:29 AM To: CABFPub <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: Gervase Markham <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: [EXTERNAL][cabfpub] Updating DTP definition Before we move the ballot forbidding DTPs from doing domain validation, we need to update the definition of DTP to make sure it excludes people and activities covered by the CA's audit. The current definition is: Delegated Third Party: A natural person or Legal Entity that is not the CA but is authorized by the CA to assist in the Certificate Management Process by performing or fulfilling one or more of the CA requirements found herein. Here is a proposed updated definition: Delegated Third Party: A natural person or Legal Entity that is not the CA, and whose activities are not within the scope of the appropriate CA audits, but is authorized by the CA to assist in the Certificate Management Process by performing or fulfilling one or more of the CA requirements found herein. Does Gerv _______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
