<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 15 (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;}
/* 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;}
span.EmailStyle17
{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='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>That’d be interesting. Is there a use case for it? <a name="_MailEndCompose"><o:p></o:p></a></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 don’t see any reason it couldn’t be done that way assuming you still have an OCSP response that complies with 4.9.10. <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><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> public-bounces@cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Peter Bowen<br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, January 13, 2016 1:49 PM<br><b>To:</b> Ryan Sleevi; Myers, Kenneth (10421); Ben Wilson; public@cabforum.org<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [cabfpub] OCSP Requirement for Root CA<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>On Jan 13, 2016, at 10:15 AM, Ryan Sleevi <<a href="mailto:sleevi@google.com">sleevi@google.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 10:03 AM, Ben Wilson <<a href="mailto:ben.wilson@digicert.com" target="_blank">ben.wilson@digicert.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><div><div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in'><p class=MsoNormal>Is the requirement really clear? Some browsers don't check OCSP for intermediates and use CRLs instead. <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>So? The BRs themselves are clear it's a requirement. I mean, if we want to change to discuss that practical reality, we certainly can, but we should at least honor the rules as written.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Section 4.9.10 makes that clear. 7.1.2.2 item c also makes this clear.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#222222'>It seems pretty clear to me. <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#222222'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#222222'>If a CA signs a certificate with CA:True in basicConstraints, then it must issue CRLs.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#222222'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#222222'>If a CA issues certificates covered by the BRs (either subscriber certificates or CA cross-certificates), then it must have an associated OCSP responder.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#222222'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#222222'>I think it is allowable that a CA that issues both kinds of certs (subscriber and CA) can issue CRLs with an IDP extension that indicates that the CRL only covers CA certs.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#222222'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#222222'>Does this sound right?<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#222222'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#222222'>Thanks,<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#222222'>Peter<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div></body></html>