Just to be clear, by S/MIME I mean ***message format***, whereas
clientAuth is a ***process*** (at least as we accept it under eIDAS).
BTW, eIDAS is completely technology neutral - clientAuth is not an eIDAS
term.
With that said, I was looking for some criteria/rules that help us to
identify the WG task.
Thanks,
M.D.
On 5/24/2018 8:04 AM, Dimitris Zacharopoulos wrote:
Moudrick, I don't think we are describing just use scenarios. This is
about subject validation and as you are very well familiar, eIDAS is
also setting requirements for how you validate natural persons and
legal entities. Then, you can use this validated information for
different trust services (authenticate, sign, encrypt, etc).
We already have identity validation requirements for the server
certificate Working Group, described in DV/OV/EV Policies for
certificates with id-kp-serverAuth EKU. Why shouldn't we include
identity validation requirements for this new Working Group for
certificates with id-kp-clientAuth and id-kp-emailProtection EKU? The
overlap in subject validation requirements between these two cases is
pretty obvious.
Even though I'd like the clientAuth to be included in the WG's initial
charter, I understand Ryan's argument for gradually building a
standard with minimum expectations at the beginning (thus limiting the
scope for S/MIME only) and expand the scope later.
So, until then, the clientAuth Certificates will remain kind-of
"unregulated" by lacking a policy standard. I suppose we will have to
live with that :)
Dimitris.
On 24/5/2018 2:34 πμ, Moudrick M. Dadashov wrote:
All three (clentAuth and S/MIME) use scenarios are essentially different.
Validation requirements for issuing signing/encryption certificates
are mostly similar, clientAuth (as we understand it under eIDAS*) is
different.
Thanks,
M.D.
* Article 3
(5) ‘/*authentication*’ means an electronic process that enables the
electronic identification of a natural or legal person, or the origin
and integrity of data in electronic form to be confirmed/.
(1) ‘/*electronic identification*’ means the process of using person
identification data in electronic form uniquely representing either a
natural or legal person, or a natural person representing a legal
person/.
(2) ‘/*electronic identification means*’ means a material and/or
immaterial unit containing person identification data and which is
used for authentication for an online service/.
On 5/24/2018 12:16 AM, Brown, Wendy (10421) via Public wrote:
I second the opinion that clientAuth and S/Mime are likely to have
a great overlap in validation requirements at least when issuing to
persons and PKIs may want to issue both types of certs from the same
CA if they are for the same validated individual..
*From:*Public [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of
*Ryan Sleevi via Public
*Sent:* Friday, May 18, 2018 9:18 AM
*To:* Dimitris Zacharopoulos <[email protected]>; CA/Browser Forum
Public Discussion List <[email protected]>
*Subject:* Re: [cabfpub] For Discussion: S/MIME Working Group Charter
On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 12:57 AM, Dimitris Zacharopoulos via Public
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 18/5/2018 2:51 πμ, Ryan Sleevi via Public wrote:
I don't think it's a cross-EKU situation, though, but I'm
glad we're in agreement.
An email server certificate is an id-kp-serverAuth EKU.
That's already covered by another WG
I sincerely hope that id-kp-clientAuth EKU will also be covered
by this WG since there will be common validation requirements
for Subject information, as with S/MIME. It seems too much
overhead to spawn an entirely different WG to deal just with
clientAuth.
If people agree, how about using the name "Client and S/MIME
Certificate WG" which seems aligned with the "Server Certificate
WG"?
As I've mentioned several times, it would be good to actually focus
on a constrained, defined problem, before you proverbially try to
boil the ocean.
It is not obvious that there will be common validation requirements,
because the id-kp-clientAuth situation has a vast dimension of
possible uses and spectrum. It's not actually reflective of the
deployed reality that the validation requirements are the same. It
also is based on an entirely separate notion of identity.
So no, I don't agree, because they really are substantially
different in deployed reality - and an S/MIME WG is, in itself, a
sizable undertaking just to get S/MIME BRs, due to the broad
spectrum of client capabilities and CA past-practices - and the
lifetime of extant certificates that presents unique challenges to
defining a sensible and realistic profile.
A good charter - one that leads to productive engagement from a
broad set of participants while actually delivering meaningful
improvements - is one that keeps itself narrowly focused on the task
at hand, produces results, and then looks to recharter based on the
things you knew were out there, but agreed not to discuss until you
actually completed the work. That allows you to keep momentum,
focus, and participation. Just look at the challenges each of our
(legacy) WG has faced with a broad remit, in that the set of topics
has made it difficult both to engage participation of the broader
Forum and to actually make forward progress, because it's constantly
having to deal with 'all these things' or trying to do 'all these
things'.
When we see narrowly focused ballots and efforts that try to solve a
specific set of problems, then we make progress. The validation WG's
effort at 3.2.2.4 is a prime example of that - a prolonged effort
that directly benefited from being focused on that problem, and
ruling some things (like 3.2.2.5) out of scope of the discussion in
order to make progress on the narrow set.
The same too is in the charter. Let's not try to encompass pet
marketing projects (EV for S/MIME), "things we might need but we
don't know why" (network security), or "things that are kinda
related, but only in some domains" (id-kp-clientAuth). Let's focus
on the problem at hand - S/MIME authentication - keeping the WG
scoped narrowly and on task, and deliver something that can help
users have faith in the Web PKI to deliver tangible benefits in that
space, rather than the reality we have today.
NOTICE: Protiviti is a global consulting and internal audit firm
composed of experts specializing in risk and advisory services.
Protiviti is not licensed or registered as a public accounting firm
and does not issue opinions on financial statements or offer
attestation services. This electronic mail message is intended
exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed.
This message, together with any attachment, may contain confidential
and privileged information. Any views, opinions or conclusions
expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and do
not necessarily reflect the views of Protiviti Inc. or its
affiliates. Any unauthorized review, use, printing, copying,
retention, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you
have received this message in error, please immediately advise the
sender by reply email message to the sender and delete all copies of
this message. Thank you.
_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
[email protected]
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
[email protected]
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
