<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=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (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:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","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
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@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="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Ryan, I just noticed your statement at the bottom of my proposal about a separate ballot for the amendment I proposed.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">When the Forum has discussed CAA in the past, it was noted that in many large enterprises (the most likely candidates for CAA), the people who buy certificates are not the
same people who manage the company’s DNS – and in fact, they may not work on the same continent or know each other. So it may be very difficult for CAA records to be updated – a potential competitive handicap for new CAs, or CAs trying to sell to an organization
that buys its certs from others. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Several of us tried experiments within our organizations, and found this was so (no communication between the two groups). It was also noted that many enterprises buy certs
from multiple CAs, sometimes a development team needs a cert on very short notice, etc. – CAA could greatly complicate this with no real benefit if any CA tries to get an exclusive CAA record for itself and use it as a competitive blocking tool.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">I’ll tell you want I’ll do at my next CA, Voracious CA – Section 18(d)(ii) of my Subscriber Agreement will say “You hereby authorize us to contact your DNS operator and create
a CAA record with our name in it.” Hah! I’ve just created a potential competitive block for all my competitors, and the customer never knew. And I’ll have my sales team always say “Hey, you know how you can REALLY increase your security? Create a CAA record
and put our name in it. That prevents rogue hackers from getting certs in your valuable domain <a totally non-target domain for hackers>. I’ll email you instructions containing the name and phone number of your DNS operator – you’ll get a discount on your
next cert if you do!” Hah – I just fooled the customer into creating a CAA record that only contains my name.<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Or if I also offer hosting services, I’ll bundle it all, with an automatic CAA record thrown in.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">For CAs to impose CAA on other CAs without protective language like what I propose presents serious competition law issues. No one yet has said “it’s a good idea for CAs
to tell their customers to create CAA records, or to do it for them,” so the proposed language is a way to make the CAA ballot palatable to many CAs (especially smaller or newer CAs).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><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""> Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi@google.com]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, September 05, 2014 4:43 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Kirk Hall (RD-US)<br>
<b>Cc:</b> CABFPub<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [cabfpub] Pre-Ballot 125 - CAA Records<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><br>
On Sep 5, 2014 4:35 PM, "<a href="mailto:kirk_hall@trendmicro.com">kirk_hall@trendmicro.com</a>" <<a href="mailto:kirk_hall@trendmicro.com">kirk_hall@trendmicro.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> Ben, I have an amendment to propose, in the form of the language below (to be added at the end of your language in Sec. 8.2.2. A word of explanation: every time CAA has come up as a topic of discussion at a CAB Forum meeting or on a call, one or more CAs
and browsers <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>I have yet to hear a browser express this concern.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>> have expressed concern that CAA could be used as a "blocking" strategy by CAs in order to add hurdles for another CA to sell certificates to the same customer. The main way this could happen is if a CA induces a customer to insert its name to a CAA record
when there is no CAA record at the time for the customer (or even worse, adds its name to a blank CAA record in the customer's name -- this could happen if the fine print of the Subscriber Agreement authorizes the CA to insert its name in a CAA record for
the customer and the customer has no idea this is happening). Another potential abuse would be if a CA got its name put in blank CAA records for other domains registered to the customer that are not even part of the pending certificate order so that other
CAs would find it more difficult to sell certificates for those domains.<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> There seems to be strong sentiment among CAs and browsers for some language prohibiting this potential practice as anticompetitive.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>I have yet to hear a browser express this concern.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>> The decision of whether or not to even have a CAA record should be solely up to the customer, not the CA.<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> With this explanation, here is my suggestion for additional language for this pre-ballot:<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> In order to make certain that CAA is not used by CAs in an anticompetitive manner, no CA shall (1) request or suggest that a customer include the CA’s name in a CAA record for the domain in question if the customer does not already have a CAA record that
includes the name of one or more other CAs but omits the CA’s name, (2) obtain authorization from the customer to act on the customer’s behalf (directly or by request to the customer’s DNS operator) to create a CAA record for the customer that includes the
CA’s name for the domain in question if the customer does not already have a CAA record that includes the name of one or more other CAs but omits the CA’s name, or (3) request or suggest that a customer include the CA’s name in a CAA record for other domains
not the subject of the customer’s certificate order or obtain authorization from the customer to act on the customer’s behalf (directly or by request to the customer’s DNS operator) to create a CAA record for the customer for other domains not the subject
of the customer’s certificate order.<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> What do you think? Does this meet everyone’s stated concerns?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>If you feel strongly about this, I feel it is worth a separate ballot. I do not support burdening this ballot with that language.<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> [Also – typo below – “(section 4.1 for CA’s still conforming to RFC 2527)” should be “(section 4.1 for CAs still conforming to RFC 2527)”]<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> -----Original Message-----<br>
> From: <a href="mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org">public-bounces@cabforum.org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org">public-bounces@cabforum.org</a>] On Behalf Of Ben Wilson<br>
> Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 2:02 PM<br>
> To: Sigbjørn Vik; Rick Andrews; Geoff Keating; Stephen Davidson; Ryan Sleevi (<a href="mailto:sleevi@google.com">sleevi@google.com</a>)<br>
> Cc: cabfpub<br>
> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Pre-Ballot 125 - CAA Records<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> Picking up where we left off .. attached is the redlined version that I think is closest to where we were on this issue:<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> 1. In Section 4 of the Baseline Requirements, add a definition for CAA Record as follows:<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> CAA Record: The Certification Authority Authorization (CAA) DNS Resource Record of RFC 6844<br>
><br>
> (http:<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6844">tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6844</a>) that allows a DNS domain name holder to specify the Certification Authorities<br>
><br>
> (CAs) authorized to issue certificates for that domain. Publication of a CAA Resource Record allows public Certification Authorities to implement additional controls to reduce the risk of unintended certificate mis-issue.<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> We might want to abbreviate this definition a bit.<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> 2. In Section 8.2.2 (instead of editing warranties in section 7.1.2 or verification practices in section 11, as some have suggested) add the following to the end of the paragraph on Disclosure:<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> Effective as of [insert date that is six months from Ballot 125 adoption], section 4.2 of a CA's Certificate Policy and/or Certification Practice Statement (section 4.1 for CA’s still conforming to RFC 2527) shall<br>
><br>
> disclose: (1) whether the CA reviews CAA Records, and if so, (2) the CA’s policy or practice on processing CAA Records and comparing them with proposed Domain Names for the Common Name field or Subject Alternative Name fields of certificates applications,
and (3) any actions taken as result of such comparison.<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> Any comments or suggestions are welcome. <br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> -----Original Message-----<br>
><br>
> From: <a href="mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org">public-bounces@cabforum.org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org">public-bounces@cabforum.org</a>] On Behalf Of Sigbjørn Vik<br>
><br>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 12:47 AM<br>
><br>
> To: Rick Andrews; Geoff Keating; Stephen Davidson<br>
><br>
> Cc: cabfpub<br>
><br>
> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Pre-Ballot 125 - CAA Records<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> On 21-Jul-14 20:11, Rick Andrews wrote:<br>
><br>
> > Siggy, how does the addition of a CAA record make DoS or DNS<br>
><br>
> > amplification<br>
><br>
> attacks more problematic?<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> I am no DNS expert, merely relaying comments from our sysadmin. If people with more knowledge in the field conclude that this is not an issue, that is fine with me, but it should be considered.<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> > -----Original Message-----<br>
><br>
> > From: Sigbjørn Vik [mailto:<a href="mailto:sigbjorn@opera.com">sigbjorn@opera.com</a>]<br>
><br>
> > Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 12:21 AM<br>
><br>
> > To: Rick Andrews; Geoff Keating; Stephen Davidson<br>
><br>
> > Cc: cabfpub<br>
><br>
> > Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Pre-Ballot 125 - CAA Records<br>
><br>
> ><br>
><br>
> > On 17-Jul-14 23:51, Rick Andrews wrote:> Siggy,<br>
><br>
> >> <br>
><br>
> >> There are a number of Security Considerations in Section 6 of the CAA<br>
><br>
> >> RFC (_<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6844#page-13_">http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6844#page-13_</a>) which detail<br>
><br>
> >> possible abuse.<br>
><br>
> ><br>
><br>
> > I don't see DoS or DNS amplification listed there.<br>
><br>
> ><br>
><br>
> > --<br>
><br>
> > Sigbjørn Vik<br>
><br>
> > Opera Software<br>
><br>
> ><br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> --<br>
><br>
> Sigbjørn Vik<br>
><br>
> Opera Software<br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
><br>
> Public mailing list<br>
><br>
> <a href="mailto:Public@cabforum.org">Public@cabforum.org</a><br>
><br>
> <a href="https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public">https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public</a><br>
><br>
> TREND MICRO EMAIL NOTICE<br>
> The information contained in this email and any attachments is confidential <br>
> and may be subject to copyright or other intellectual property protection. <br>
> If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to use or <br>
> disclose this information, and we request that you notify us by reply mail or<br>
> telephone and delete the original message from your mail system.<br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Public mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Public@cabforum.org">Public@cabforum.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public">https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public</a><br>
><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>
<table><tr><td bgcolor=#ffffff><font color=#000000><pre><table class="TM_EMAIL_NOTICE"><tr><td><pre>
TREND MICRO EMAIL NOTICE
The information contained in this email and any attachments is confidential
and may be subject to copyright or other intellectual property protection.
If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to use or
disclose this information, and we request that you notify us by reply mail or
telephone and delete the original message from your mail system.
</pre></td></tr></table></pre></font></td></tr></table>