[Cscwg-public] NetSec version in CSBR references

[Bruce Morton]

Can we remove the version number for the NetSec requirements as listed in CSBR section 1.6.3? I think our goal should be to meet the latest version of the NetSec requirements. CAs which want to monitor or stay ahead of the NetSec requirement changes, can join the NetSec Working Group.


Bruce.

From: Servercert-wg <servercert-wg-bounces at cabforum.org> On Behalf Of Inigo Barreira via Servercert-wg
Sent: Monday, November 6, 2023 10:49 AM
To: Tobias S. Josefowitz <tobij at opera.com>
Cc: CA/B Forum Server Certificate WG Public Discussion List <servercert-wg at cabforum.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Servercert-wg] Ballot SC-066: Fall 2023 Clean-up v3

Thanks for the clarification, for me it´s not a problem to leave the NetSec version number as it is now, v1. 7, and therefore apply #423 as initially proposed. I will make the correspondent changes and will provide a new version unless someone


Thanks for the clarification, for me it´s not a problem to leave the NetSec version number as it is now, v1.7, and therefore apply #423 as initially proposed. I will make the correspondent changes and will provide a new version unless someone else speaks up and have a different view or proposal.



OTOH, and FWIW, I´ve seen that while the CS BRs is the same as in the TLS BRs but the SMIME BRs have the version 1.7 "or later".



Regards



-----Mensaje original-----

De: Tobias S. Josefowitz <tobij at opera.com<mailto:tobij at opera.com>>

Enviado el: lunes, 6 de noviembre de 2023 16:30

Para: Inigo Barreira <Inigo.Barreira at sectigo.com<mailto:Inigo.Barreira at sectigo.com>>

CC: CA/B Forum Server Certificate WG Public Discussion List <servercert-wg at cabforum.org<mailto:servercert-wg at cabforum.org>>

Asunto: RE: [Servercert-wg] Ballot SC-066: Fall 2023 Clean-up v3



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.





Hi Inigo,



On Mon, 6 Nov 2023, Inigo Barreira wrote:



> Not sure what you are requesting, to not consider the issue #423 and

> remove the version number of the NetSec or that this change can´t be

> considered a "clean-up" ballot and should go on a different one. Or

> none of these ?



Both. Let me re-state my original points with all the possible clarity:



First, this seems to be a highly significant change relating to something that has rightly been identified as sensitive around the formation of the NetSec WG.



Second, since this is such a highly significant change, if it were to be made, it should not be made in a "Clean-up" Ballot. (For what it is worth, I do not think that this change should be made at all.)



> When the #423 was discussed, and Dimitris indicated in the proposal,

> was to remove the version numbers to avoid pointing to old or

> deprecated versions because everytime there was a new version of the

> NetSec, the TLS BRs should change/update and point to the new version.

> Dimitris indicated in the text that we could leave the version of the

> NetSec but I think that we agreed during the call to also remove that

> version number. Maybe someone else can clarify or remember what was

> agreed. If it was decided to keep the version number for the NetSec,

> this can be reverted.



I can understand that the significance of this change could easily be missed during a Meeting situation. Luckily we have the opportunity in the Ballot process to address such questions before a Ballot goes to vote.



Tobi

_______________________________________________

Servercert-wg mailing list

Servercert-wg at cabforum.org<mailto:Servercert-wg at cabforum.org>

https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/servercert-wg__;!!FJ-Y8qCqXTj2!aghEKS2hdEJo8MwPIZkWcBg6Yv88NKrtXtgsLkhEFCeOlmLwyQKQP653DVbM_gawEQ6vnvlpfqo9XKYElbDzRWzD_8JVqg$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/servercert-wg__;!!FJ-Y8qCqXTj2!aghEKS2hdEJo8MwPIZkWcBg6Yv88NKrtXtgsLkhEFCeOlmLwyQKQP653DVbM_gawEQ6vnvlpfqo9XKYElbDzRWzD_8JVqg$>

Any email and files/attachments transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If this message has been sent to you in error, you must not copy, distribute or disclose of the information it contains. Please notify Entrust immediately and delete the message from your system.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/cscwg-public/attachments/20231106/5b013d67/attachment.html>