<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";color:#1F497D'>Thanks for the response and pointers. I’ve read through the threads but still have additional questions/comments. I’ll readily admit that I don’t understand all the commentary in the Mozilla threads so I apologize if these questions sound somewhat naïve. Happy to be educated:<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>You've heard repeatedly from several browsers about an explicit non-goal of distinguishing DV and OV. As the Forum is comprised of CAs and Browsers, do we have any Browsers that wish to make such a distinction? If not, it would be wholly inappropriate for the Forum to require it.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>>>I haven’t heard of any browsers that want to make that distinction (yet). It is my understanding that the Forum BRs do require an OID for EV certs. So why is it “inappropriate” for the Forum to require OIDs for DV/OV? <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>If there are non-browser relying parties interested in such distinctions, the CA can always provide such distinctions themselves.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>>>Can you elaborate on what you mean by this? If there’s another way to accomplish the end result, happy to explore further. But it would have to be uniform among all CAs that issue these certs.<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>As someone very keen on programatic checks and detection for misissuance, there's no question that this would NOT meaningfully help address the concerns we see.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>>>I wasn’t suggesting that this addition would in any way help you with your programmatic checks for mis-issuance. Rather, it would make the task for organizations like Netcraft, EFF or others that tabulate statistics on various types of certificates easier to do. Is that not the case?<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>That is, there would need to be an OID _per revision_ of the BRs, to indicate "which" version of the BRs something was complying to. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>>>Fully admit that I don’t understand how this works. But wouldn’t that also be the case for EV (which currently requires this OID)?<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><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I’m just trying to suggest a way that someone can say: X is a DV cert, Y is an OV cert, Z is an EV cert without a doubt. If OIDs are not the place to do that, is there another mechanism available?<br>I’m sure you are familiar with Ryan Hurst’s blog on how difficult the task currently is.<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><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><br>Thanks,<br>Dean<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"'> public-bounces@cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Ryan Sleevi<br><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, October 02, 2014 3:37 PM<br><b>To:</b> Dean Coclin<br><b>Cc:</b> public@cabforum.org<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [cabfpub] OIDs for DV and OV<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Dean Coclin <<a href="mailto:Dean_Coclin@symantec.com" target="_blank">Dean_Coclin@symantec.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Further to today’s discussion on our call, I’d like to get more feedback on a proposal to make a unique standardized OID mandatory for DV and OV certificates in the Baseline Requirements. Currently we have a mandatory OID for EV certificates but optional for OV and DV. This makes things difficult for at least two groups of constituents:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p>1.<span style='font-size:7.0pt'> </span>Relying parties that would like to distinguish between these certificates<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>You've heard repeatedly from several browsers about an explicit non-goal of distinguishing DV and OV. As the Forum is comprised of CAs and Browsers, do we have have any Browsers that wish to make such a distinction?<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>If not, it would be wholly inappropriate for the Forum to require it. If there are non-browser relying parties interested in such distinctions, the CA can always provide such distinctions themselves.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in'><div><div><p>2.<span style='font-size:7.0pt'> </span>Analysts that report on SSL certificate data who have had to issue revised reports because of cert misclassification<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal>As mentioned on the call, this has been discussed with Mozilla in the past - <a href="https://groups.google.com/d/msg/mozilla.dev.security.policy/-mCAK5zfhFQ/hEOQK-ubGRcJ">https://groups.google.com/d/msg/mozilla.dev.security.policy/-mCAK5zfhFQ/hEOQK-ubGRcJ</a><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>As someone very keen on programatic checks and detection for misissuance, there's no question that this would NOT meaningfully help address the concerns we see.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>That is, there would need to be an OID _per revision_ of the BRs, to indicate "which" version of the BRs something was complying to. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>I would hope that <a href="https://groups.google.com/d/msg/mozilla.dev.security.policy/-mCAK5zfhFQ/2tRUS444krwJ">https://groups.google.com/d/msg/mozilla.dev.security.policy/-mCAK5zfhFQ/2tRUS444krwJ</a> would capture some of these concerns more fully.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Finally, to do anything meaningful with this in all major clients, it would require that CAs redo their certificate hierarchy, as policy OIDs are inherited. That's a silly thing, especially when CAs are still struggling to migrate from SHA-1 to SHA-256 in their intermediates.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>My proposal is for CAs to put in OID X if it’s a DV certificate and OID Y if it’s an OV certificate.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>As Rick reminded me on the call, we currently have something like this for EV certificates (except that CAs are free to use the standard OID or define one of their own).<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>I’d like to hear pros/cons of this. Ryan S indicated that Google would not support such a proposal but we didn’t have time to discuss the reasons.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>I’m sure there are both technical and policy reasons. Personally I’d like to focus on the latter but remarks on both are welcome. This proposal doesn’t require anyone to do anything with this data (i.e relying parties can choose whether or not to utilize it).<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><br>Thanks,<br>Dean<o:p></o:p></p><p> <o:p></o:p></p><p> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><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><o:p></o:p></p></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></div></body></html>