Hi Tim,
None of the IETF standards set policy unless they are invited by some
policy authority :) The BRs set such policy and "import" some documents,
such as RFC 5280, 3647 and others.
The BRs in section 1.1 state:
These Requirements do not address all of the issues relevant to the
issuance and management of Publicly-Trusted Certificates. In
accordance with RFC 3647 and to facilitate a comparison of other
certificate policies and CPSs (e.g. for policy mapping), this document
includes all sections of the RFC 3647 framework. However, rather than
beginning with a "no stipulation" comment in all empty sections, the
CA/Browser Forum is leaving such sections initially blank until a
decision of "no stipulation" is made
In addition, section 2.2 states (emphasis added):
The Certificate Policy and/or Certification Practice Statement MUST be
structured in accordance with RFC 3647 and *MUST include all material
required by RFC 3647*.
If you go back to the discussions when the CA/B Forum decide to align
with the "RFC 3647 format", we agreed to include each and every section
of the outline as a minimum set.
MRSP states in section 3.3 (5) (again, emphasis added):
5. all CPs, CPSes, and combined CP/CPSes MUST be structured according
to RFC 3647 and MUST:
- include *at least every section and subsection defined in RFC 3647*;
- only use the words "No Stipulation" to mean that the particular
document imposes no requirements related to that section; and
- contain no sections that are blank and have no subsections;
So, with all that considered, when we visit section 6 of RFC 3647
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3647#section-6> ("the
outline"), the expectation is to include each and every section and
subsection of the outline (up to three levels).
CAs are free to add MORE sections and subsections as they desire, just
like the BRs have done, but we can't escape or "hijack" an existing RFC
3647 section number. The outline contains a specific section labeled as
"3.2.1 Method to prove possession of private key". That means we cannot
re-use the number 3.2.1 for something else.
I hope this sounds reasonable to people.
Dimitris.
On 1/12/2023 6:51 μ.μ., Tim Hollebeek wrote:
This is unfortunately wrong. There are lots of misconceptions about
RFC 3647 “compliance”.
The first point is that RFC 3647 is an INFORMATIONAL RFC. You can see
this right at the top, where it says “Category: Informational”. This
means that it contains no requirements and it’s impossible to be out
of compliance with it. This is why I put quotes around “compliance”.
Any requirements around it need to come from elsewhere, for example, a
root program requirement that requires a particular document to be in
RFC 3647 format. But that’s vague and informal, because 3647 doesn’t
have requirements, it just has an outline and suggested contents. It’s
not 100% precise what “MUST be in RFC 3647 format” means, and we need
to just acknowledge that (specifying it precisely would be a colossal
waste of time).
So what does “RFC 3647 format” mean? RFC 3647’s outline only covers
the first two levels. So “Section 3.2: Initial Identity Validation”
is a RFC 3647 section header, and most reasonable interpretations of
“RFC 3647 format” would require it to exist with that or a
substantially similar name and contents.
Section 3.2.1, on the other hand, is not an RFC 3647 section. It’s
common to have a third level of headers that mirror the “bullet
points” in the suggested content for the section, but those are just
unordered bullet lists in RFC 3647. Claiming that section 3.2.1 of a
document in RFC 3647 must describe private key protection goes beyond
what RFC 3647 says. Section 3.2 just “contains the following
elements”, so private key protection is just one of several topics
that one might discuss in section 3.2. It could be section 3.2.1, but
it could be elsewhere in 3.2, and it’s perfectly fine for 3.2.1 to not
exist, have different content, etc.
Figuring out where section 11.1 goes is not trivial, but at first
glance, section 3.2 is not an unreasonable choice, and I can
understand why Inigo made it. And there isn’t a compliance reason why
it can’t be section 3.2.1, if that’s what we want.
Of course, we could convert the recommended bulleted sections to a
numbered list of subsections (we often do elsewhere), in which case
section 3.2.1 could be “Private Key Protection” with contents “No
Stipulation”. If we do that, I suggest we follow the rest of the
bullets as well.
Either way works.
-Tim
*From:* Dimitris Zacharopoulos <[email protected]>
*Sent:* Friday, December 1, 2023 10:48 AM
*To:* Inigo Barreira <[email protected]>
*Cc:* Tim Hollebeek <[email protected]>; CA/B Forum Server
Certificate WG Public Discussion List <[email protected]>
*Subject:* Re: [Servercert-wg] SC-065: Convert EVGs into RFC 3647
format pre-ballot
We MUST comply with RFC 3647 which means that we must include sections
that are listed in the outline of 3647, and if we have nothing to say,
we leave it empty. We can't "hijack" the numbering just because we
have no requirements to describe.
That's my interpretation of the RFC 3647 compliance. Perhaps others
can chime in and state their opinion.
Thanks,
DZ.
Dec 1, 2023 14:50:23 Inigo Barreira <[email protected]>:
Thanks Dimitris.
I think that strictly speaking, in RFC 3647 this section is the
4.3.2 Initial Identity Validation and the first bullet is about
proving the possession of the private key, but there´s no specific
section other than the general approach that we´ve implemented.
That said, the current EVG does not include anything about the
possession of the private key because that´s covered in the TLS
BRs so that section does not exist in the EVGs and therefore I
didn´t know how to avoid/implement it.
I decided to continue with the normal numbering for an easy
checking, so all 11 section is moved into section 3.2 and the rest
of the sub-numbers do not change (so 11.1 would be 3.2.1, 11.1.1
would be 3.2.1.1, etc.)
I understand your point but I think we can´t create a section
3.2.1 for private key possession because there´s no such a text in
the EVGs (and don´t think we should add anything new, even a NA
for that) and don´t know which other sections we can create under
3.2 that can break the current equivalence, which again was done
for an easy comparison.
So, what would you suggest to “comply” with that? I don´t have a
clear idea.
Regards
*De:*Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) <[email protected]>
*Enviado el:* jueves, 30 de noviembre de 2023 13:16
*Para:* Inigo Barreira <[email protected]>; Tim Hollebeek
<[email protected]>; CA/B Forum Server Certificate WG
Public Discussion List <[email protected]>
*Asunto:* Re: [Servercert-wg] SC-065: Convert EVGs into RFC 3647
format pre-ballot
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Inigo,
As I am working to migrate the EV Guidelines into the EV Code
Signing Baseline Requirements I took a look at the mapping you
provided for the EV Guidelines and noticed that you are proposing
migration of EVG section 11.1 into section 3.2.1. This particular
section is labeled "Method to prove possession of private key" in
RFC 3647 so I don't think it is appropriate. I think it's best to
create new subsections under 3.2.
Thanks,
Dimitris.
On 8/9/2023 7:54 μ.μ., Inigo Barreira wrote:
Hi all,
Attached you´ll find the EVG v1.8.0 with comments in all
sections indicating where those sections, and the content,
have been moved into the new EVG RFC3647 format. So, with this
document, plus the redlined version, I hope you can have now a
clearer view of the changes done.
Let me know if you need anything else to clarify the new version.
Regards
*De:*Inigo Barreira <[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>
*Enviado el:* martes, 29 de agosto de 2023 17:06
*Para:* Tim Hollebeek <[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>; Dimitris Zacharopoulos
(HARICA) <[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>;
CA/B Forum Server Certificate WG Public Discussion List
<[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>
*Asunto:* RE: [Servercert-wg] SC-065: Convert EVGs into RFC
3647 format pre-ballot
Thanks Dimitris and Tim.
I did something of that internally but didn´t reflect on the
document, so will try to reproduce to have it clearer.
OTOH, and as indicated in the PR, the whole section 11 has
been placed in section 3.2 keeping the rest of the numbering.
So, for example:
EVG EVG3647
11.1 3.2.1
11.1.1 3.2.1.1
11.1.2 3.2.1.2
11.1.3 3.2.1.3
11.2 3.2.2
11.2.1 3.2.2.1
….. ….
11.13 3.2.13
11.14 3.2.14
11.14.1 3.2.14.1
11.14.2 3.2.14.2
11.14.3 3.2.14.3
Hope this can clarify the main difficult that I found in the
document, where to place it and how.
Regards
*De:*Tim Hollebeek <[email protected]>
*Enviado el:* martes, 29 de agosto de 2023 16:59
*Para:* Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) <[email protected]>;
Inigo Barreira <[email protected]>; CA/B Forum Server
Certificate WG Public Discussion List <[email protected]>
*Asunto:* RE: [Servercert-wg] SC-065: Convert EVGs into RFC
3647 format pre-ballot
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the
organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless
you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Yes, exactly. I would like to see a list that shows that
EVG-classic section 1.4 is now in EVG-3647 section 4.1. Then
I can look at where the new text landed, see how the
conversion was handled, we can all verify that nothing was
lost or left out, etc.
Without that, anyone attempting to review the document is
forced to recreate the mapping just to figure out where
everything went and that nothing was missed or put in the
wrong place. Redlines are not sufficient when large amounts
of text are moving around to different places.
I’m saying this because from my spot-checking, the conversion
appears to be pretty good, and I’d like to be able to do a
final verification that it’s mostly correct so I can endorse.
-Tim
*From:*Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
*Sent:* Tuesday, August 29, 2023 7:58 AM
*To:* Inigo Barreira <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>; CA/B Forum Server
Certificate WG Public Discussion List
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>; Tim Hollebeek
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
*Subject:* Re: [Servercert-wg] SC-065: Convert EVGs into RFC
3647 format pre-ballot
Hi Inigo,
You can take some guidance from previous successful efforts to
convert existing documents into RFC 3647 format. The latest
attempt was in the Code Signing BRs conversion in May 2022.
Check out the mapping document and the comments in the ballot
discussion period
<https://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/cscwg-public/2022-May/000795.html>.
For each existing section/paragraph, it would be nice to have
a comment describing where that existing language will land in
the converted document (destination). This will allow all
existing text to be accounted for.
During this process, you might encounter duplicate or
redundant text which needs to be flagged accordingly. You
might also get into some uncertainty as to which RFC3647
section is a best fit for existing text that might require
additional discussion.
I hope this helps.
Dimitris.
On 29/8/2023 12:42 μ.μ., Inigo Barreira via Servercert-wg wrote:
Hi Tim,
See attached redlined and current versions. I just used
what Martijn suggested yesterday but let me know if this
is what you were looking for.
Regards
*De:*Tim Hollebeek <[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>
*Enviado el:* lunes, 28 de agosto de 2023 19:49
*Para:* Inigo Barreira <[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>; CA/B Forum Server
Certificate WG Public Discussion List
<[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>
*Asunto:* RE: SC-065: Convert EVGs into RFC 3647 format
pre-ballot
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the
organization. Do not click links or open attachments
unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Thanks for doing this Inigo … I know re-organizations like
this are a lot of work and fall very much in the category
of “important but not fun”. So thanks for taking an
initial stab at this.
Is there a mapping that shows where all the original text
ended up? I think that’s going to be essential for people
to be able to review this. I did some spot checking, and
your conversion looks pretty good, but I wasn’t able to do
a more detailed review without a mapping.
-Tim
*From:*Servercert-wg <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> *On Behalf Of
*Inigo Barreira via Servercert-wg
*Sent:* Monday, August 28, 2023 5:20 AM
*To:* CA/B Forum Server Certificate WG Public Discussion
List <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
*Subject:* [Servercert-wg] SC-065: Convert EVGs into RFC
3647 format pre-ballot
Hello,
The current Extended Validation Guidelines (EVGs) are
written in a non-standardized format. For many years it
has been discussed to convert this document into the RFC
3647 format and follow the standardized model for this
type of documents.
Given that this has been known for several years, I have
prepared the following ballot text, which converts the
EVGs into the RFC 3647 format:
EVGs based on RFC3647 by barrini · Pull Request #440 ·
cabforum/servercert (github.com)
<https://url.avanan.click/v2/___https:/github.com/cabforum/servercert/pull/440___.YXAzOmRpZ2ljZXJ0OmE6bzoyOGIxNWVhZGVmZDlkZTM0NjQzZTA3YTlmYTA2MzM5YTo2OmExZWM6NGZmMGEzM2U0ZWZjOTU4MTM1NWRkNjU3ZDE5YjU3Y2YxNzg1NWU0ZTVjYzkzY2NjM2M0MWU5MzEyYzJmZTQ0NzpoOkY>
I am currently seeking two endorsers as well as any
feedback on the ballot content itself (wording, effective
dates, etc.).
Thanks,
_______________________________________________
Servercert-wg mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/servercert-wg
<https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/servercert-wg>
_______________________________________________
Servercert-wg mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/servercert-wg
