Kirk,

This is very comprehensive and detailed, nice work to those involved!. I have 
two minor questions.

Item 4.5.13 says: "The CA follows a CA key destruction script for key 
destruction ceremonies that includes the following:" (then lists 8 numbered 
items).

-        Are all 8 of these items REQUIRED as part of the script, or is this a 
guide that you "should" include them if they are applicable?  The reason I ask 
is that you might destroy keys without zeroization of the HSM.
This section seems more focused on how to destroy HSMs vs keys, is that the 
intent of 4.9.5?  If so, then maybe a different intro sentence might be needed 
to indicate that.
Also, item e) isn't totally clear about what is needed or recorded: "physical 
security requirements for the ceremony location (e.g., barriers, access 
controls and logging controls);"


Item 4.9.5 says this regarding transport of key fragments: "if transported by 
common carrier, each fragment is sent using a different common carrier at 
different times. Shipments require signature service, tracking, and are 
insured."

-        Is using a different common carrier for each fragment a requirement?  
There may not be a sufficient number of reliable carriers with these 
requirements to ship all fragments.

Doug

From: Public [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Kirk Hall via 
Public
Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2017 4:45 PM
To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <[email protected]>
Subject: [cabfpub] Need two endorsers for Ballot 211 - Resolution of Approval 
for WTCA v2.1 Changes

Per our discussion on the CA/Browser Forum teleconference today, here is Ballot 
211.  Are there two endorsers for this?

BALLOT 211 - Resolution of Approval for WTCA v2.1 Changes

Type of Ballot: Resolution of Approval of Forum Members only, and not a Draft 
Guideline Ballot or Final Maintenance Guideline Ballot.

The following motion has been proposed by Kirk Hall of Entrust Datacard and 
endorsed by the following CA/B Forum member representatives: XXXX and YYYY to 
introduce a Resolution of Approval for WebTrust for CAs v2.1 Changes, as 
described in the Ballot.

Purpose of Ballot: The WebTrust Task Force (TF) is ready to adopt changes to 
WebTrust for CAs Sec. 4.5 on CA key archival and destruction and new sections 
4.9 and 4.10 on CA key transportation and CA key migration, as it has been 
seeing a number of open questions in those areas.  However the Task Force does 
not ordinarily create draft requirements, but instead typically relies on 
requirements from other credible sources (such as ISO 21188 for the original 
WebTrust for CAs in 2000) and then creates related audit criteria.  The Task 
Force has not asked the Forum to add the Sec. 4.5-4.10 changes to the Baseline 
Requirements or adopt them in a new formal Forum requirements document, but 
would like the Forum to formally approve the new audit criteria in a Forum 
Ballot.  This Ballot was drafted in response.

--Motion Begins--

RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL

The Members of the CA/Browser Forum have reviewed the proposed changes to the 
language of Section 4.5 and the new language of Sections 4.9 and 4.10 in the 
draft Trust Service Principles and Criteria for Certification Authorities (also 
known as WebTrust for CAs) version 2.1, and hereby APPROVE the changes and new 
language and recommend that they be ADOPTED by the WebTrust Task Force (as the 
language in these sections may be changed from time to time by the WebTrust 
Task Force in the future, in the Task Force's sole discretion) in the final 
version of WebTrust for CAs version 2.1 and subsequent versions.

--Motion Ends--


BALLOT 211 - Resolution of Approval for WTCA v2.1 Changes



Start time (22:00 UTC)

End time (22:00 UTC)



Discussion (7 to 14 calendar days)

[date]

[date]



Vote for approval (7 calendar days)

[date]

[date]



If vote approves ballot: Review Period - Not applicable.


_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
[email protected]
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public

Reply via email to