<html 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"><head><META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:8.0pt;
margin-left:0in;
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;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@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]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Thanks. I forgot that you had mentioned that previously. The correction has been duly noted in the official version of the minutes.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> Rick Andrews [mailto:Rick_Andrews@symantec.com] <br><b>Sent:</b> Monday, November 11, 2013 2:11 PM<br><b>To:</b> ben@digicert.com<br><b>Subject:</b> RE: [cabfpub] Notes of Meeting - CAB Forum 24 October 2013<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Ben,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>“Ryan Smith” -> “Brian Smith”<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>-Rick<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt'><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> <a href="mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org">public-bounces@cabforum.org</a> [<a href="mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org">mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Ben Wilson<br><b>Sent:</b> Monday, November 11, 2013 1:07 PM<br><b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org">public@cabforum.org</a><br><b>Subject:</b> [cabfpub] Notes of Meeting - CAB Forum 24 October 2013<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><b>Here are the notes from our penultimate CA/Browser For telephone call. <o:p></o:p></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b>CAB Forum <o:p></o:p></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b>24 October 2013 <o:p></o:p></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b>Version 1<o:p></o:p></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b>1. Present:</b> Gerv Markham, Eddy Nigg, Ben Wilson, Dean Coclin, Atsushi Inaba, Wayne Thayer, Jeremy Rowley, Geoff Keating, Carolyn Oldenburg, Rick Andrews, Stephen Davidson, Tom Albertson, Atilla Biler, Kelvin Yiu, <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><b>2. Agenda:</b> Approved as published. (Note – next meeting on 7 Nov 2013 will be AFTER switch off of Daylight Savings in Europe and North America, so those who have been on DST will have this call one hour earlier because this call is always at 1600 UTC.)<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><b>3. Approval of minutes:</b> Minutes of 19 Sept 2013 and 10 October 2013 approved for publication as previously distributed. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><b>4. Ballots:</b> Ballot 89 was withdrawn for editing. Rick and Ben were going to work on it, but they have been busy lately. They’ll revisit where it is and get it out for another review. Ballot 109 – could everyone vote on that? Gerv has voted already, voting ends next Monday. Ballot 103 - Ben revisited the current draft language recently. The most recent concern was that there would not be enough implementation time, but Ben doesn’t think there needs to be implementation time because it is unlikely anybody would have already implemented Section 13.2.1 the way that the language suggested it would have been implemented. Bruce Morton had responded that he thought it might be Verizon who had some problem with not having the AIA for OCSP. Ben would still like to get two endorsers on it. As Bruce suggested, he deleted section 3 because it was no longer needed. He will send it out again seeking endorsement. If anybody has concerns, please let Ben know, especially the implementation section. He said he is fine with saying “Effective date January 1 2014” if people are opposed to saying “Effective immediately”. Is there a preference? Does anyone care? He’ll think about this issue a bit more before sending it out.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><b>5. Website edits remaining:</b> Most of the remaining tasks aren’t that hard. Dean will try to go through the punch list later today. Dean will send back notice by Monday of how far he was able to get through the list.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><b>6. Membership Applications: <o:p></o:p></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b>CertSign: </b>Certsign sent in their application in, and we went back to them and asked whether they have issued publicly trusted certificates to public web sites. They responded affirmatively with examples of websites using their SSL certificates. In Dean’s opinion, they meet the criteria. He asked that they be approved, but he noted that the bylaws say that a vote is required, which we have not conducted formally in the past. Gerv suggested that the bylaws be amended so that new members are approved by the chair after discussion unless two members object and ask for a vote, then there would be a vote. So the chair would do the vetting, recommend and take action unless there were objections. Ben will take that as a proposed bylaw revision that we can discuss in the next draft circulated. Dean will go back to CertSign and let them know they are approved.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><b>Atos:</b> Atos has signed the IPR and meets all of the requirements for membership, but they have not issued publicly trusted certificate to a public web site. They are in the queue with Mozilla, but are already in Microsoft. They have issued other SSL certs, but haven’t provided a demonstration that they have issued publicly trusted SSL certificates other than test ones. Ben said that if they are in Microsoft, they can always issue a real certificate to a server somewhere that we can see and test with Windows. Tom noted that we do have the precedent of Affirmtrust, which wasn’t considered a voting member until they started to issue certificates. Wayne agreed with this approach. Dean said that he would advise them that they can have observer status until they have demonstrated real certificate issuance, and then they would have voting rights.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><b>7. Cloudflare request for membership as an interested party:</b> Dean noted that they’ve signed the IPR agreement, and it’s clear that they can participate in the new working group being formed. Eddy suggested that we make sure to send out an invitation to other CDN groups, so that we can have their input, rather than from just one CDN. Gerv will see if Ryan Smith is willing to be a co-chair from Mozilla, but the position for two co-chairs is technically open, so we’ll put out a request for nominations or volunteers. Gerv will respond to Cloudflare and let them know that as soon as we have the signed IPR, they can participate as an interested party. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><b>8. Mandatory SANS in SSL certificates</b>: Ben said this must be resolved today one way or another because of an issue that Entrust has. Eddy said he didn’t think it was a highly urgent matter that had to be resolved today. He said that because it’s an application issue, it is in Entrust’s client’s power to correct, it’s not something that is wrong with the platform. Rick said that this is a customer that has a large install-base, so it’s likely going to be difficult to change their base, and their not using browsers. Symantec has the same problem with similar customers. He said that he is testing with certificates that do not have a server_auth EKU, but instead have a critical custom EKU, and whether browsers will prevent you from proceeding with these types of certificates. Rick wondered how other members of the Forum felt about this solution. Jeremy said that the same approach was being followed in the NFC Forum. He wasn’t sure whether they were making it critical, but it was being designed to make sure that the browsers wouldn’t trust it. Wayne said we need to amend the Baseline Requirements, because since these certificates come off a trusted root, then CAs will likely find it difficult to explain to auditors who might not agree. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Some points were added: the BRs don’t apply currently to code signing certificates, so they would not be subject to the BR audit; maybe the CA could just issue a certificate for a week or a month and just document the explanation in the audit (but there are customers needing a solution for the next several years); or a subCA could be technically constrained or blacklisted in the untrusted certificate store so that they would be trusted by the browser. In summary, the poison EKU seems like a good idea.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Ben said we have started working on an amendment that clarifies the scope of the BRs for auditors as mentioned by Wayne and that we want to make sure that certain profiles or requirements are met for SSL certificates. We don’t want a party to just leave out the server_auth EKU or do something else and say that the certificate wasn’t intended to be an SSL certificate, or vice versa. For purposes of answering the question, then, can we say that there is enough in the BRs currently to make the argument to auditors that the poison-EKU solution is sufficient to take this out from under the BRs and that the Forum will modify the Baseline Requirements so that these types of certificates are clearly out? There was general consensus that this was the case, and that we also do need to modify the BRs because if a certificate doesn’t comply, then CAs will be failing audits. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><b>9. Issuing test certificates directly off the root</b>: Eddy recalled that this email question concerned whether test certificates could be issued directly off the Root CA used to issue EV certificates. Ben read aloud the email from Bruce Morton a request that we define a set of criteria for test certificates (issued to the CA’s domain, with longer CRL validity periods, documented processes, etc.). Eddy said that Kathleen has mentioned that for them it is important for browsers to have the complete certificate chain for testing purposes. He wondered whether it was a necessity to issue directly off of a root. So, this should be discussed more. Ben said that he would draft a follow-up email to Bruce and send it to Eddy for review before sending it to Bruce that asks questions or expresses concerns about the request. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><b>10. Revisions to the bylaws:</b> Dean said that he had read over the package with the redlines and changes. Dean thinks that the only thing left is Section 3.2 on Interested Parties. Ben agreed and said he would tackle it again. Ben explained that in the definition of “browser” he put in “major global provider of certificate-using software” even though some might say the definition is too broad or vague. He was not too concerned because if a new applicant claims to be a “major global provider of software” we can just look up how that phrase is used on the Internet - whether the applicant is listed as “a major global provider of software” because there are not too many companies recognized at that level. Dean suggested we put all proposed changes into one document and we can do it all at one time because the changes to date have not been that controversial.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><b>11. Other Business:</b> Dean said that we had received an application for work group participation from Aida Travel Port, who would like to join the Code Signing Working Group. Once we receive clarification on an outstanding question about the entity signing the IPR Agreement, then they would be allowed to participate, but activity of the Code Signing Working Group is already winding down because they are about to approve the working group draft. Code signing and EV Guidelines working groups are having their calls next week.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><b>12. Next phone call</b> is Thursday, November 7. Again, those observing Daylight Savings in Europe and North America will call in one hour earlier because this call is always at 1600 UTC.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><b>13. Meeting adjourned.<o:p></o:p></b></p></div></div></body></html>