<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 12px; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; "><div><div><div>Hi Tim.</div><div><br></div><div>In the AOB section, I also raised the subject of retention of Personal Identifiable Information. Within both the EV and BR guidelines the CABForum mandates times to store information beyond the expiry of a certificate. Given that under BR SSL certificates 'may' be purchased by individuals and noting that individuals may already be somehow involved in a face to face meetings or investigation by a CA during the vetting process, then we need to be mindful of current and future European Regulations such that we don't unnecessarily burden CA's with requirements that could be deemed incompatible with legislation. It's not one for immediate discussion and possibly not one for the next F2F, but maybe one for the meeting beyond that, especially if we could aim to locate a guest speaker knowledgeable on the subject.</div><div><br></div><div>I don't feel it's necessary to up-issue the meeting minutes for this item, but please feel free to add if any other changes are necessary.</div><div><br></div><div>Steve</div><div><div><div><p></p><font class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); "><font class="Apple-style-span"><p style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 14px; "></p></font></font></div></div></div></div></div><div><br></div><span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION"><div style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; text-align:left; color:black; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt"><span style="font-weight:bold">From: </span> Tim Moses <<a href="mailto:tim.moses@entrust.com">tim.moses@entrust.com</a>><br><span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span> Friday, 25 May 2012 15:10<br><span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span> CABFPub <<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org">public@cabforum.org</a>><br><span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span> [cabfpub] Notes of meeting, CAB Forum, 24 May 2012, Version 1<br></div><div><br></div><div xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.5pt;
font-family:Consolas;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:Consolas;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div class="WordSection1"><p class="MsoNormal">Notes of meeting<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">CAB Forum<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">24 May 2012<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Version 1<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">1. Present<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Tim Moses, Ben Wilson, Wayne Thayer, Atsushi Inaba, Brad Hill, Jeremy Rowley, Dean Coclin, Eddy Nigg, Kirk Hall, Robin Alden, Bruce Morton, Mads Henriksveen, Sissel Hoel, Gerv Markham, Geoff Keating, Carsten Dahlenkamp, Rick Andrews, Chris
Bailey, Tom Albertson, Sid Stamm, Wendy Brown, Ryan Sleevi, Renne Rodriguez, Yngve Pettersen, Chris Palmer, John Johansen, Steve Roylance, Ryan Hurst, Simon Labram, Phill Hallem-Baker, Bill Madell, John Espinosa, Tom Ritter<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">2. Agenda review<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Eddy asked that requirements for the inclusion of the German “state” in an EV certificate be discussed under Item 14.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">3. Minutes of meetings on 10 May<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">The minutes were accepted as published.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">4. Ballots status<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Ballot 72 is open. Ballot 74 opens later today.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Yngve said that he has circulated a motion to address the BR issues that were assigned to him. He is seeking endorsers.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Tim said that he, too, has circulated a motion for BR Issue 14 and is seeking endorsers.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">5. Gjovik agenda, logistics and RSVP<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Mads has provided logistical information for Meeting 26 in Gjovik.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://www.cabforum.org/wiki/Face-to-face%20meeting%20calendar">https://www.cabforum.org/wiki/Face-to-face%20meeting%20calendar</a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">He requests that those who plan to attend let him know as soon as possible.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">The meeting agenda is also posted there. Tim asked that members review the draft agenda and identify topics for inclusion.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">6. Process for IPR Agreement submission<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Tim said that the deadline for submitting executed IPR agreements (for continuity of membership) was 7 June. Eleven members have submitted to date.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Jeremy said that he felt the motion for Ballot 67 was unclear. Dean said that his legal adviser told him that it could be interpreted as allowing 120 days from the effective date for submission of exclusion notices. Tim disagreed. He
said that he thought the motion was clear, and that 60 days was the allowed period. Jeremy said that nothing important would be lost by extending the period. Tim said that the result of a formal ballot could only be overturned by another formal ballot.
If such ballot were to complete before 7 June, it would have to be announced today.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Wayne asked whether, in light of Entrust’s exclusion notice, there would be a Patent Advisory Group. Tim said that he believed that to be the case. He said that that should be determined once the 7 June deadline had passed.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">7. Options for governance reform<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Chris P said that the Governance working group was almost ready to return the discussion to the Forum as a whole. There are four complete proposals; those from PayPal, Microsoft, DigiCert and TrendMicro. The next step was to post the
proposals on cabforum.org.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Brad said that the TrendMicro proposal mischaracterizes the content of the submissions that have been received concerning problems with the current organization and procedures. He asked that, if it is to be posted in such a way that rebuttal
is not feasible, then it should limit itself to a description of the proposal. Kirk disagreed. He said that, if he were to make the requested changes, he would expect the other proposals to similarly remove any criticism of the Forum’s operations to date.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Brad agreed to send Kirk a revised version of the TrendMicro proposal for his consideration. Dean said that Kirk will simply reject Brad’s version. Brad said that an alternative approach would be to publish all the discussion related
to the proposals. The issue was returned to the Governance working group for further discussion and resolution.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Tim asked about the next step. He voiced a concern that to simply put multiple proposals to the vote may not produce a result that fairly reflects the members’ views.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Chris P said that he foresaw more discussion taking place within the Forum membership on the individual elements of the decision process as laid out by Jeremy in his summary of progress to date. This will probably result in refined/combined
proposals. It was also agreed that the working group would meet one more time and that it would consider the question of how to get to _one_ proposal from the current four.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">7. The way forward for the network security project<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Ben said that the Network Requirements document was ready for public review. There was some discussion about whether this step should be approved by ballot. It seems clear that our lifecycle process demands this. Jeremy said that, now
that we have more public scrutiny on the document development, a ballot should be unnecessary.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Tom said that he had been expecting a ballot and was preparing to review the document once the ballot was announced.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">It was agreed that any revisions to the lifecycle document could await the outcome of the governance deliberations.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Gerv and Eddy agreed to endorse Ben’s motion to move the document to public review.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">8. Qualified CSPs<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Tim said that both Tom and Stephen Davidson had expressed concerns that there is (potentially) a significant number of CSPs in Europe to whom the Baseline Requirements may apply, and who may not even be aware of the BRs’ existence.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Tim said that any CSP in the Mozilla program should be aware as a result of Kathleen Wilson’s communication. Tom said that he could also contact members of Microsoft’s program and make them aware of the existence and relevance of the Baseline
Requirements.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Tom said that he would also make his embedding partners aware of the Forum’s upcoming Meeting 26.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">10. MITM with bogus certificates<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Yngve said that he has posted an article on recent uses of malware to perform MITM attacks.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText"><a href="http://my.opera.com/securitygroup/blog/2012/05/16/suspected-malware-performs-man-in-the-middle-attack-on-secure-connections">http://my.opera.com/securitygroup/blog/2012/05/16/suspected-malware-performs-man-in-the-middle-attack-on-secure-connections</a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">11. Non-member contributions<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Tim pointed out that there exist some anomalies in our handling of non-member contributions. 1. We have indicated that current members who don’t sign the IPR agreement ahead of Meeting 26 should not plan to attend, yet we have invited
non-members to attend. 2. The point of application of the IPR obligation is the 60-day review period, but non-members who have made a contribution may no longer be active at that time.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Ben and Jeremy agreed to provide a short notice indicating the expectation that contributions be identified as encumbered where that is the case. The notice would be added to the notices that are currently attached to the agenda, to the
anti-trust statement read out at the beginning of in-person meetings, and to a boilerplate slide for inclusion in non-members’ presentations.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">12. Luxembourg audit scheme and EV<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Tim recapped his understanding of the audit scheme in Luxembourg as described by ILNAS. ILNAS is a public institution that audits private CSPs in Luxembourg. They are (apparently) self-accrediting. This precise situation is not contemplated
in the BR and EV Audit Requirements. If the CSP had been a public-sector operation, then it would have been allowed. ILNAS has asked if their EV audit of a private-sector CSP (LuxTrust) would be acceptable to the CAB Forum.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Two suggestions were considered: 1. We could ask LuxTrust to become a member of the Forum and make a proposal to modify the EV Guidelines to accommodate their situation. 2. We could recommend that LuxTrust approach each of the embedding
programs with a request that their situation be allowed. Then the embedding programs would make a proposal to modify the EV Guidelines accordingly. It was decided to take the latter approach. Tim agreed to contact Nick Pope and ask him to put this to ILNAS.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">13. Use of the "public" list<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">There was some discussion about which topics should be discussed on the public mail list and which on the private mail list. The Governance working group was asked to consider the question and provide guidance within their governance proposals.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">It was decided that the agenda and minutes of teleconferences and other meetings would be circulated on the public list, but teleconference dial-in details would be available only on the members-only Wiki.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">14. Any other business<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Eddy brought up the question of EV certificates and the need to identify the German state. It was agreed that German states should be treated in a manner similar to US states.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Eddy said that he had attempted to contact a member concerning a non-conformant certificate that they had issued. He had not received a reply. He wondered when it would be appropriate to escalate. It was agreed that researchers should
(as Eddy has done) contact the relevant CA whenever a non-conformance is discovered. The researcher should use his or her own discretion in deciding when to escalate. But, that escalation could take the form of posting the certificate in the “Observed Problems”
section of the Wiki.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">John E asked for clarification concerning the requirements for signing the IPR Agreement and exclusion notice. Tim said that, for continuity of membership, the deadline for submission of both is 7 June. John pointed out that those who
miss the deadline will be required to make a royalty-free grant without exclusions.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">15. Next meeting<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">7 June.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">T: +1 613 270 3183<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></div>
_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
<a href="mailto:Public@cabforum.org">Public@cabforum.org</a>
<a href="http://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public">http://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public</a>
</span></body></html>