GDCA votes YES on Ballot 218.
Yongqiang ZHANG
原始邮件
发件人:Curt Spann via publicpub...@cabforum.org
收件人:Tim hollebeektim.holleb...@digicert.com; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion
listpub...@cabforum.org
发送时间:2018年1月30日(周二) 09:26
主题:Re: [cabfpub] Voting begins: Ballot 218 version 2
Apple votes YES on Ballot 218.
Curt
On Jan 29, 2018, at 1:51 PM, Tim Hollebeek via Public public@cabforum.org wrote:
I’m highly skeptical that discussing this for another month will change
anybody’s minds. It has already been discussed for over a month, including at
three validation working group meetings and once on the management call, with
extensive discussion on this list as well.
There have been a number of clever attempts to distract from the matter at
hand. Everybody seems to agree that methods #1 and #5 as currently written are
insufficient to validate certificates, and efforts to improve method #1 have
all either been shown to be similarly weak, or have turned the validation
method into one of the other existing validation methods. In fact, this
demonstrates an obvious transition path for CAs currently using method #1: use
method #2 or method #3.
Since methods #1 and #5 do not sufficiently validate certificates, they should
not be used, and six months should be more than enough time to cease using them.
Here is the final version of the ballot, with voting times. A redlined document
is attached (I encourage other proposers to post ballot redlines, even if it
isn’t required).
-Tim
----- Ballot 218 version 2: Remove validation methods #1 and #5 -----
Purpose of Ballot: Section 3.2.2.4 says that it “defines the permitted
processes and procedures for validating the Applicant’s ownership or control of
the domain.” Most of the validation methods actually do validate ownership and
control, but two do not, and can be completed solely based on an applicant’s
own assertions.
Since these two validation methods do not meet the objectives of section
3.2.2.4, and are actively being used to avoid validating domain control or
ownership, they should be removed, and the other methods that do validate
domain control or ownership should be used.
The following motion has been proposed by Tim Hollebeek of DigiCert and
endorsed by Ryan Sleevi of Google and Rich Smith of Comodo.
-- MOTION BEGINS –
This ballot modifies the “Baseline Requirements for the Issuance and Management
of Publicly-Trusted Certificates” as follows, based upon Version 1.5.4:
In Section 1.6.1, in the definition of “Domain Contact”, after “in a DNS SOA
record”, add “, or as obtained through direct contact with the Domain Name
Registrar”
In Section 3.2.2.4.1, add text at the end: “For certificates issued on or after
August 1, 2018, this method SHALL NOT be used for validation, and completed
validations using this method SHALL NOT be used for the issuance of
certificates.”
In Section 3.2.2.4.5, add text at the end: “For certificates issued on or after
August 1, 2018, this method SHALL NOT be used for validation, and completed
validations using this method SHALL NOT be used for the issuance of
certificates.”
After Section 3.2.2.4.10, add following two new subsections:
“3.2.2.4.11 Any Other Method
This method has been retired and MUST NOT be used.
3.2.2.4.12 Validating Applicant as a Domain Contact
Confirming the Applicant's control over the FQDN by validating the Applicant is
the Domain Contact. This method may only be used if the CA is also the Domain
Name Registrar, or an Affiliate of the Registrar, of the Base Domain Name.
Note: Once the FQDN has been validated using this method, the CA MAY also issue
Certificates for other FQDNs that end with all the labels of the validated
FQDN. This method is suitable for validating Wildcard Domain Names.“
In Section 4.2.1, after the paragraph that begins “After the change to any
validation method”, add the following paragraph: “Validations completed using
methods specified in Section 3.2.2.4.1 or Section 3.2.2.4.5 SHALL NOT be
re-used on or after August 1, 2018.”
-- MOTION ENDS –
For the purposes of section 4.2.1, the new text added to 4.2.1 from this ballot
is “specifically provided in a [this] ballot.”
The procedure for approval of this ballot is as follows:
Discussion (7+ days)
Start Time: 2017-01-22 21:30:00 UTC
End Time: 2017-01-29 21:50:00 UTC
Vote for approval (7 days)
Start Time: 2017-01-29 21:50:00 UTC
End Time: 2017-02-05 21:50 UTC
CA-Browser Forum BR 1.5.4 - Ballot 218
redline.doc_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
Public@cabforum.org
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
Public@cabforum.org
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public