>I also disagree with the complexity introduced by Martijn's suggestions. IMO simplicity should drive any rules around this issue.
My tentative suggestions for tweaking the policy language are rather aimed at making things simpler by ensuring that each party is following the same practices, which is something that is currently not occurring. Fully agreed that simplicity is the way to go with this. Trying to establish with the root program owners what the current rules actually are, would be a first step forward in that process. Op maandag 19 augustus 2024 om 19:50:59 UTC+2 schreef Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA): > > > On 19/8/2024 6:23 μ.μ., 'Aaron Gable' via CCADB Public wrote: > > I agree that older versions of CP/CPS documents are important and useful, > and ideally should be exposed for parties who want to see versions that > were in effect when older certificates were validated or issued. > > But the reality is that, for example, Let's Encrypt's CCADB pages were > nearly unreadable due to the huge listing of historical CP/CPS documents. > It was also incredibly difficult to tell which documents were relevant > because we had made a change from separate CP and CPS to a combined CP/CPS. > The UI simply displays all historical documents, with no ability to filter > by when they were in force, and no ability to easily see which newer > document replaced them. So we decided to go through and mark all historical > versions of our documents as "deleted" to make the pages readable and > usable again. > > Ideally, there would be a nice in-between. But today, keeping many > historical document versions active results in an unfortunate user > experience. > > > Would it make sense for CCADB to automatically mark a previous version as > "superseded" when a new version is uploaded? > > Dimitris. > > > Aaron > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2024, 08:11 'Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA)' via CCADB > Public <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Apologies for top-posting. >> >> It's a bit unclear to me "why" this distinction (of a CP/CPS being >> declared as "deleted" or not in CCADB) is important. IMO this is a source >> of confusion and may lead to many different interpretations of the >> expectations. >> >> A CP/CPS has an effective date, just like the BRs. When a new version of >> a CP/CPS is released, it has a new effective date. This doesn't mean the >> previous CP/CPS documents are not useful for a public PKI (either for TLS >> or Code Signing, S/MIME, etc), or that it should be marked as "deleted" or >> "obsolete". >> >> As an example why old versions are useful, when a CA performs a Domain >> Validation, this is performed at time X and could be re-used for X+398 >> days. This means that a certificate for the same Domain Name could be >> issued with a CP/CPS of version X, and a re-newed certificate could be >> issued under a newer CP/CPS but it would include a Domain Validation that >> was performed under the rules of a previous CP/CPS (at time X). >> >> CCADB should try to keep things as simple as possible. When a new version >> of a CP, CPS, or a CP/CPS is uploaded, it should just add it to the >> "Repository" of documents associated with a certain CA. Relying Parties >> should know how to process and read these documents and how to process >> their effective dates. I don't think there is a need to flag a document >> "deleted" or "obsolete" because there are important elements in each CP/CPS >> version. As Ben highlighted, CAs are already required to publish all the >> versions of their CP/CPS documents on their public website. It would only >> make sense to flag a document in CCADB as "withdrawn" (or similar) to >> indicate that the information of that document is incorrect, or uploaded by >> mistake. >> >> I also disagree with the complexity introduced by Martijn's suggestions. >> IMO simplicity should drive any rules around this issue. >> >> >> Best regards, >> Dimitris. >> >> >> >> On 19/8/2024 5:00 μ.μ., 'Martijn Katerbarg' via CCADB Public wrote: >> >> Thank you all for the feedback so far. Firstly, I wanted to clarify that >> we’re aware that none of the data is ever really removed from CCADB. The >> mentions of deleting items in my original post referred to the CCADB option >> to mark them as deleted. >> >> In response to Clint: >> >> >I think it’s worth noting that 1 & 3 are, I believe, mostly the same; >> that is, Policy Documents marked as “Deleted” in the CCADB are not removed >> from the database. >> >> The difference between these options that I was attempting to convey is >> that, in option 1, “old” CPSes are marked as deleted; whereas in option 3, >> they are not. With that clarification, we take note that Apple sees option >> 1 as the preferred option at this moment. >> >> Since Chris has expressed the same preference on behalf of the Chrome >> root program, would it be appropriate to declare that option 1 is the >> requirement? >> >> >Regarding the “change log” sections of Policy Documents, I agree there’s >> not much specific guidance on what is desired or expected here. Both a >> summary of the changes and a list of sections in which changes occurred >> seem particularly valuable to me; are there any other suggestions or ideas >> from the community on this? >> >> I think the recent changes in the Chrome Root Program Policy are a good >> step forward in resolving this. Specifically: >> >> “ >> >> *To promote simplicity and clarity, these CA policy documents SHOULD be: >> ….. * >> *available in Markdown.*” >> >> I presume this was added partially to aid in comparing different versions. >> >> In response to Ben: >> >> >I think the middle option is the best choice, and the first bulleted >> item is a second-best choice, although any of them are appropriate. >> >> It seems Mozilla has a different preferred approach (Option #2), but does >> not set a hard requirement on this. >> >> In response to Mike: >> >> > I think the most common practice is 1, though? >> >> Both options 1 and 2 seem to be common at present. >> >> > = is accompanied by a CPSHash property in the cert >> >> The CPSURI is not a required field for end-entity certificates, so I’m >> not sure any new CPSHash property would be a required field in the future. >> >> > a CPS is marked “obsolete” or “expired” or whatever the definitions WG >> comes up with once there are no valid certs left that reference the CPS in >> question >> >> While such an approach *might* work for the TLS WebPKI (though I’m not a >> fan of the approach), it might cause issues when looking at S/MIME and Code >> Signing, in which certificates are still useful after expiration. Different >> policies for TLS compared to other certificates seems like it would open >> the door to incorrect executions down the line. A unified approach here >> would be strongly preferred. >> >> As some final thoughts to all: >> >> It remains unclear if any of the root programs would categorise any of >> the 3 options as either MUST or MUST NOT. Currently, I’d summarise it as >> preferred approaches. Since the preferred approaches also do not fully >> align, would the CCADB Steering Committee be willing to discuss a singular, >> unified approach, and clarify the requirement in a future CCADB policy >> update? >> >> Document archival for “deleted” CP/CPSes is only available for Root >> Certificates in CCADB, as far as we can tell. Many Intermediate Certificate >> records have “Same as Parent” set, but that is not the case for all. If >> “Same as Parent” is not set, the applicable CP/CPSes are entered via >> freeform text fields in the Intermediate Certificate record. As such, we >> currently understand that these fields should always have only the last >> published version listed (within 7 days after publication). >> >> Regards, >> >> Martijn >> Op zaterdag 17 augustus 2024 om 11:03:02 UTC+2 schreef Mike Shaver: >> >>> On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 7:15 PM Chris Clements <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> (e.g., the in-force CP for a given PKI hierarchy is incremented from >>>> Version 1.1 to Version 1.2), it should be replaced with data that is >>>> accurate. >>>> >>> >>>>> 1. The new CPS should be added, and the old CPS should be deleted >>>>> as it is no longer in effect for new certificate issuance. >>>>> 2. The new CPS should be added, but the old CPS should be kept in >>>>> place as long as there are unexpired certificates under its policy. >>>>> >>>>> 3. The new CPS should be added. Older entries should be kept >>>>> indefinitely to serve as an archive overview. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> The Chrome Root Program prefers CA Owners behave similar to #1, but as >>>> described above, “delete” is not the most appropriate term for the >>>> non-current versions of the policy documents. In actuality, the system >>>> behavior is more consistent with #3 due to document archive functionality. >>>> >>> >>> OK, I may be confused here and talking nonsense, but I don’t think that >>> there is necessarily (or even likely) a single in-force CP for a given PKI >>> hierarchy at a given time. A policy is bound to a cert via the CPSUri when >>> that cert is issued, and the policy relating to that cert is then immutably >>> fixed. That’s why we’ve seen revocations necessary for certs issued in ways >>> that didn’t match the contents of CPSUri at the time that the cert was >>> issued, since the only way to remedy that is to issue an new cert bound to >>> the updated policy. >>> >>> At the moment that a new CPS comes into effect, it actually relates to >>> _none_ of the live certs in the hierarchy, and depending on the update >>> schedule for the CPS, it might not at any point even apply to a plurality >>> of such live certs. CCADB should at least have all the CPS documents that >>> apply to any live certs under a registered root, IMO, and they should all >>> be treated as equally “active”. >>> >>> Unfortunately, this weak binding (requires that a human go to a URL and >>> pick the one that applies to the date range and cert type) sort of sucks in >>> terms of clarity and garbage collection. >>> >>> If I were designing this system now, I would probably make the rules be: >>> >>> - CPS documents are markdown-enhanced text files >>> - each CPS gets a unique URL, ideally with a human-readable/collatable >>> version number as a component >>> = either a content-addressable hash-carrying URL hierarchy hosted under >>> ccadb.org, or >>> = is accompanied by a CPSHash property in the cert >>> - a CPS is marked “obsolete” or “expired” or whatever the definitions WG >>> comes up with once there are no valid certs left that reference the CPS in >>> question >>> >>> That would let the matching of applicable CPS to cert be mechanically >>> performable, rather than the gross version-walking-in-an-HTML-index that >>> has to happen now. Making it be markdown would mean fewer changes that are >>> due to formatting, and improve the ease of mechanical analysis. >>> >>> I’m squinting through some meaty jet lag so that proposed system >>> probably has some issues, but I think that it’s important that we establish >>> whether a CPS is per-cert, or per-hierarchy; if the latter, then maybe move >>> it into the roots themselves and save some handshake bytes? >>> >>> Mike >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "CCADB Public" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/a/ccadb.org/d/msgid/public/d71c388f-8853-4a4b-9d49-a9aa4635ef50n%40ccadb.org >> >> <https://groups.google.com/a/ccadb.org/d/msgid/public/d71c388f-8853-4a4b-9d49-a9aa4635ef50n%40ccadb.org?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "CCADB Public" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/a/ccadb.org/d/msgid/public/381e5c16-52ab-4ef7-9c0c-ede928dc0a4d%40harica.gr >> >> <https://groups.google.com/a/ccadb.org/d/msgid/public/381e5c16-52ab-4ef7-9c0c-ede928dc0a4d%40harica.gr?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "CCADB Public" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/a/ccadb.org/d/msgid/public/CAEmnErckLgLskiQUUzY7ATW6W%3DWfnzMw6GzJKEeh7yu6%2B9frVw%40mail.gmail.com > > <https://groups.google.com/a/ccadb.org/d/msgid/public/CAEmnErckLgLskiQUUzY7ATW6W%3DWfnzMw6GzJKEeh7yu6%2B9frVw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CCADB Public" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/ccadb.org/d/msgid/public/2c0b9fa9-cf19-4a74-8a09-b38f70fffa7dn%40ccadb.org.
