<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
</head>
<body>
<style type="text/css" style="display:none;"><!-- P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;} --></style>
<div id="divtagdefaultwrapper" style="font-size:12pt;color:#000000;background-color:#FFFFFF;font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
<p>Simple - because we have customers who now need the functionality, and without this change we cannot give it to them. <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div id="Signature">
<p><a title="Ctrl+Click or tap to follow the link" id="LPNoLP" href="http://aka.ms/weboutlook"></a><br>
</p>
</div>
</div>
<hr style="display:inline-block;width:98%" tabindex="-1">
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size:11pt" color="#000000"><b>From:</b> Richard Barnes <rbarnes@mozilla.com><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, April 21, 2016 6:22:02 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Jody Cloutier<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Ryan Sleevi; Rick Andrews; public@cabforum.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [cabfpub] Proposed new ballot on IP Addresses in SANs</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 9:13 AM, Jody Cloutier <span dir="ltr">
<<a href="mailto:jodycl@microsoft.com" target="_blank">jodycl@microsoft.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="font-size:12pt;color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif">
Ryan, I'm not sure I understand why Google is so intent on this new course of public shaming on this matter and others currently under discussion, but if it helps to do the right thing, then fine. The fact is that the requirement was not addressed, and we need
to figure out how to fix the issue for all of our customers. Microsoft has addressed this in Windows 10, but we are not currently planning on back-porting this change to previous operating systems. As such, this change is needed or all of our customers will
be affected. <br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Maybe I'm being dense, but I'm still not understanding what's changed here. How have these customers not been "affected" already for all time? The BRs have *always* prohibited IP addresses in dNSName SANs (all the way back to v1), so presumably if everyone
were adhering to the BRs, people haven't *ever* been able to use pre-Win10 cilents. Why do we need to create that capability now?<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>--Richard<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="font-size:12pt;color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif">
<br>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<hr style="display:inline-block;width:98%">
<div dir="ltr"><font style="font-size:11pt" face="Calibri, sans-serif" color="#000000"><span class=""><b>From:</b>
<a href="mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org" target="_blank">public-bounces@cabforum.org</a> <<a href="mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org" target="_blank">public-bounces@cabforum.org</a>> on behalf of Ryan Sleevi <<a href="mailto:sleevi@google.com" target="_blank">sleevi@google.com</a>><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, April 16, 2016 9:37 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Rick Andrews<br>
</span><span class=""><b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org" target="_blank">
public@cabforum.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [cabfpub] Proposed new ballot on IP Addresses in SANs</span></font>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
<div>
<div class="h5">
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 9:31 AM, Rick Andrews <span dir="ltr">
<<a title="Ctrl+Click or tap to follow the link" href="mailto:Rick_Andrews@symantec.com" target="_blank">Rick_Andrews@symantec.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="auto">
<div>I disagree with the tone that CAs are entirely to blame here. </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Why? I provided you evidence on how you could have issued such certificates without violating the BRs.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The fact that you:</div>
<div>1) Seemingly did not attempt to discover this yourself</div>
<div>2) If you did attempt, were unable to, and did not seek for outside input</div>
<div>3) When you did receive outside input, ignored it</div>
<div>4) Have continued to argue that it's necessary, without providing any response in over 8 months show that it isn't</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Shows that the CAs doing this ARE entirely to blame.</div>
<div> <br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="auto">
<div><span>The BRs are baseline requirements, and browser vendors often say that they have the right to impose additional requirements above and beyond the BRs. When that happens, though, it sometimes puts CAs in a bind. </span></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>And by a bind, it means you'd like to do something, but can't, besides browsers say you shouldn't. That isn't a bind - that's how security works. You can't be simultaneously trusted to be the bastion of online security while also engaging in insecure practices.
That isn't how trust works.</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="auto">
<div>
<div><span>This is a case in which the BRs say we can't do something, but one browser vendor says we can.</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I'd love to hear that from Jody, given the evidence.</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="auto">
<div>
<div><span>Ideally, Microsoft would have recognized this back before the BRs were adopted, and addressed it in their platform or lobbied to rewrite the requirement.
</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>"And addressed it in their platform" - but they did, as you yourself have said. Windows 10 addressed this.</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="auto">
<div>
<div><span>But that didn't happen. We're trying to rectify the situation now. </span></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>You're not trying to rectify it. If you were, you would have explored 8 months ago what I proposed, and reported back to the Forum why it wasn't viable.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>And let's be clear here: there's a big difference between "not viable" (e.g. it doesn't work) and "not desirable" (e.g. our customers or we have to do more work). Given the role that CAs play in the online trust ecosystem, the goal is not to enable every
business desire a CA has, nor to encourage or bless every practice that violates standards. It's to make a balanced tradeoff between risk, reward, and standards. I have seen no evidence of good-faith effort on your part in the past 8 months to strike that
balance, because if there had been, the line of reasoning for this change wouldn't be what you're presently arguing.</div>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</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>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>