<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>I think if we can make the SSL deployment automatically, then Ryan's dream is not a problem. One year even one month is ok.</div><div>Currently, subscriber like 39 months since less work for the deployment.</div><div><br><div>Regards,<div><br></div><div>Richard</div></div></div><div><br>On Mar 30, 2016, at 17:55, Ryan Sleevi <<a href="mailto:sleevi@google.com">sleevi@google.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><p dir="ltr">Doug,</p>
<p dir="ltr">Forgive my ignorance, but could you perhaps expand on this, and explain a bit more about the challenges your organization would face?</p>
<p dir="ltr">From the browser perspective, reducing validity times and revalidation times is a big win for security and the ability to change. The ability to make changes one year sooner is a HUGE win. I can understand and appreciate that you may value that increased security differently, but where I would like to understand better is what impact this would have from the CAs side, and why this would be undesirable.</p>
<p dir="ltr">To that end, would you be willing to explain in more detail what would have to happen on the CA's side to bring this in? Can you "sell me" on the difficulty, by perhaps providing more concrete explanations of the changes necessary, and not just the abstract categories? My ideal response to such an email from you would ideally be "Wow, that's so much, I didn't realize" - so can you fill in that blank and help me have that reaction?</p>
<p dir="ltr">Ultimately, the goal is to better understand the concrete concerns and objections, as well as have a better understanding of the overall challenges, so that if and when we revisit this topic, we can make sure to fully consider the impact and perhaps explore solutions.</p>
<p dir="ltr">The challenge that I have with your current response is that it doesn't share enough detail to really see if there is any room for changes or compromise, nor does it really help form a picture other than "This is hard because I say it's hard," and I suspect there's much more subtlety and nuance than the broad stroke I just painted it as.</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Mar 30, 2016 9:41 AM, "Doug Beattie" <<a href="mailto:doug.beattie@globalsign.com">doug.beattie@globalsign.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="white" lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">Jeremy,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">I’m also against making any changes. I don’t see the value of this change exceeding all the work on communications, system updates and operational procedure changes needed to make this happen.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">Doug<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="m_6213666863749989854__MailEndCompose"><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></a></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 #e1e1e1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span style="color:windowtext"> <a href="mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org" target="_blank">public-bounces@cabforum.org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org" target="_blank">public-bounces@cabforum.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Rich Smith<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, March 30, 2016 12:32 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org" target="_blank">public@cabforum.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [cabfpub] Certificate validity periods<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Jeremy,<br>
I'm not sure Comodo would support any change at this point, but if we were to change I'd like to propose, let's call it 1c;<br>
Set all max validity to 27 months; Require re-validation for all at 27 months.<br>
<br>
I'm against your proposal of 1a for the same reasons I don't like 27/13 for EV It puts us in position of having to redo validation of a replacement request by the customer. In this case, the customer would get the DV or OV for 27 months, be able to replace
at will, renew the cert for an additional 27 months, but be subject to revalidatiion half way through the 2nd when trying to get a replacement/re-issuance. This is bad enough with EV already, and I'm very much against extending it to OV/DV. If we can't find
a reasonable path to match up the re-validation requirement with max validity then I'm against making any changes.<br>
<br>
>From the customer perspective, they expect to have to jump through hoops at the point of placing a new order. We don't generally get push back on that. What they don't expect, and what it is very difficult to make them understand is having to jump through
the hoops again during the validity period of the same order. The customer doesn't understand these requirements and it causes a bad customer experience, for which they blame the CA.<br>
<br>
-Rich<span style="font-size:12.0pt"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 3/30/2016 11:04 AM, Jeremy Rowley wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi everyone, <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I’d like to resurface the certificate validity period discussion and see if there is a way to move this forward. I’m still keen on seeing a standardized maximum validity period for all certificate types, regardless of whether the certificate
is DV, OV, or EV. I believe the last time this was discussed, we reached an impasse where the browsers favored a shorter validity period for OV/DV and the CAs were generally supportive of a longer-lived EV certificate (39 months). The argument for a shorter
validity period were 1) encourages key replacement, 2) ensures validation occurs more frequently, 3) deters damage caused by key loss or a change in domain control, and 4) permits more rapid changes in industry standards and accelerates the phase-out of insecure
practices. The argument for longer validity periods: 1) customers prefer longer certificate validity periods, and 2) the difficulty in frequent re-validation of information.
<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So far, there seems to be two change proposals with a couple of variations:<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p><u></u><span>1)<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span><u></u>Set all certificate validity periods to no more than 27 months<u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.0in">
<u></u><span>a.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span><u></u>Require re-validation of information for OV/DV certificates at 39 months OR<u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.0in">
<u></u><span>b.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span><u></u>Require re-validation of information for all certs at 13 months<u></u><u></u></p>
<p><u></u><span>2)<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span><u></u>Set all certificate validity periods to 39 months<u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.0in">
<u></u><span>a.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span><u></u>Require re-validation every 13 months<u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.0in">
<u></u><span>b.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span><u></u>Require re-validation of information for OV/DV certificates at 39 months<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">What are the objections to 1a? With all the automated installers abounding, 1a seems to capture the simplicity and customer convenience of 39 months with the advantages of shorter-lived certs. Who would oppose/endorse a ballot that does
one of these? <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Jeremy<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><br>
<br>
<br>
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<pre>_______________________________________________<u></u><u></u></pre>
<pre>Public mailing list<u></u><u></u></pre>
<pre><a href="mailto:Public@cabforum.org" target="_blank">Public@cabforum.org</a><u></u><u></u></pre>
<pre><a href="https://apac01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fcabforum.org%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2fpublic&data=01%7c01%7cdoug.beattie%40globalsign.com%7c5f587960e07541e1515308d358b8f658%7c8fff67c182814635b62f93106cb7a9a8%7c0&sdata=yOHEryG9SRTd7oLAmRab7nnkt%2bFY4%2fmbzXPzoGGDS0U%3d" target="_blank">https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public</a><u></u><u></u></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<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" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div>
</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>Public mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:Public@cabforum.org">Public@cabforum.org</a></span><br><span><a href="https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public">https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public</a></span><br></div></blockquote></body></html>