<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Hi everyone,<br>
<br>
This ballot is now entering its seven-day discussion period. My
sincere thanks to everyone who helped shape the text into what it is
today.<br>
<br>
Changes from draft 3:<br>
<br>
* 1 hour changed to 8 hours as minimum caching time, to make manual
issuance easier.<br>
<br>
* Added text from Ryan, at Doug's suggestion, of exactly which
properties need to be supported.<br>
<br>
* Marked Jeremy and Ryan as endorsers (assuming they don't object to
the above changes).<br>
<br>
Gerv<br>
<p class="line874"><b>Ballot 187 - Make CAA Checking Mandatory<br>
</b></p>
<p class="line862">The following motion has been proposed by Gervase
Markham of Mozilla and endorsed by Jeremy Rowley of DigiCert and
Ryan Sleevi of Google: <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="line874"><b>Statement of Intent</b> <span class="anchor"
id="line-6"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-7"></span></p>
Certificate Authority Authorization (CAA) is a DNS Resource Record
defined in RFC 6844 - <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6844/">https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6844/</a>
, published in January 2013. It allows a DNS domain name holder to
specify one or more Certification Authorities (CAs) authorized to
issue certificates for that domain and, by implication, that no
other CAs are authorized.<br>
<br>
The intent of this motion is to make it mandatory for CAs to check
CAA records at issuance time for all certificates issued (except in
a few special cases), and to prevent issuance if a CAA record is
found which does not permit issuance by that CA. This therefore
allows domain owners to set an issuance policy which will be
respected by all publicly-trusted CAs, and allows them to mitigate
the problem that the public CA trust system is only as strong as its
weakest CA.<br>
<br>
Note that CAA is already a defined term in the BRs and so does not
need definitional text to be provided by this motion.<span
class="anchor" id="line-13"></span><span class="anchor"
id="line-14"></span>
<p class="line874"><b>-- MOTION BEGINS --</b> <span class="anchor"
id="line-15"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-16"></span></p>
Add the following text as a new section 3.2.2.8 (titled "CAA
Records") of the Baseline Requirements:<br>
<blockquote>This section is effective as of 8 September 2017.<br>
<br>
As part of the issuance process, the CA must check for a CAA
record for each dNSName in the subjectAltName extension of the
certificate to be issued, according to the procedure in RFC 6844,
following the processing instructions set down in RFC 6844 for any
records found. If the CA issues, they must do so within the TTL of
the CAA record, or 8 hours, whichever is greater.<br>
<br>
This stipulation does not prevent the CA from checking CAA records
at any other time.<br>
<br>
<div>When processing CAA records, CAs MUST process the issue,
issuewild, and iodef property tags as specified in RFC 6844.
Additional property tags MAY be supported, but MUST NOT conflict
with or supersede the mandatory property tags set out in this
document. CAs MUST respect the critical flag and reject any
unrecognized properties with this flag set.</div>
<br>
RFC 6844 requires that CAs "MUST NOT issue a certificate unless
either (1) the certificate request is consistent with the
applicable CAA Resource Record set or (2) an exception specified
in the relevant Certificate Policy or Certification Practices
Statement applies." For issuances conforming to these Baseline
Requirements, CAs MUST NOT rely on any exceptions specified in
their CP or CPS unless they are one of the following:<br>
<ul>
<li>CAA checking is optional for certificates for which a
Certificate Transparency pre-certificate was created and
logged in at least two public logs, and for which CAA was
checked.</li>
<li>CAA checking is optional for certificates issued by an
Technically Constrained Subordinate CA Certificate as set out
in Baseline Requirements section 7.1.5, where the lack of CAA
checking is an explicit contractual provision in the contract
with the Applicant.</li>
<li>CAA checking is optional if the domain's DNS is operated by
the CA or an Affiliate of the CA.</li>
</ul>
CAs are permitted to treat a record lookup failure as permission
to issue if:<br>
<ul>
<li>the failure is outside the CA's infrastructure; <br>
</li>
<li>the lookup has been retried at least once; and <br>
</li>
<li>the domain's zone does not have a DNSSEC validation chain to
the ICANN root.</li>
</ul>
CAs MUST document potential issuances that were prevented by a CAA
record in sufficient detail to provide feedback to the CAB Forum
on the circumstances, and SHOULD dispatch reports of such issuance
requests to the contact(s) stipulated in the CAA iodef record(s),
if present. CAs are not expected to support URL schemes in the
iodef record other than mailto: or https:.</blockquote>
Update section 2.2 ("Publication of Information") of the Baseline
Requirements, to remove the following text:<br>
<pre> Effective as of 15 April 2015, section 4.2 of a CA's Certificate Policy and/or Certification
Practice Statement (section 4.1 for CAs still conforming to RFC 2527) SHALL state whether
the CA reviews CAA Records, and if so, the CA’s policy or practice on processing CAA Records
for Fully Qualified Domain Names. The CA SHALL log all actions taken, if any, consistent with
its processing practice. </pre>
and replace it with:
<pre> Effective as of 8 September 2017, section 4.2 of a CA's Certificate Policy and/or Certification
Practice Statement (section 4.1 for CAs still conforming to RFC 2527) SHALL state the CA’s policy or
practice on processing CAA Records for Fully Qualified Domain Names; that policy shall be consistent
with these Requirements. It shall clearly specify the set of Issuer Domain Names that the CA
recognises in CAA "issue" or "issuewild" records as permitting it to issue. The CA SHALL log all actions
taken, if any, consistent with its processing practice.
Add the following text to the appropriate place in section 1.6.3 ("References"):
</pre>
<blockquote>RFC6844, Request for Comments: 6844, DNS Certification
Authority Authorization (CAA) Resource Record, Hallam-Baker,
Stradling, January 2013. <br>
</blockquote>
<b>-- MOTION ENDS -- <br>
</b><span class="anchor" id="line-45"></span><span class="anchor"
id="line-46"></span><br>
<p class="line874" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">The
procedure for approval of this Final Maintenance Guideline
ballot is as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="line874" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<table class="MsoNormalTable" style="border-collapse:collapse"
border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="width:229.25pt;border:solid windowtext
1.0pt;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" valign="top" width="459">
<p class="line874"
style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:106%"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">BALLOT
187</span></p>
<p class="line874"
style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:106%"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Status:
Maintenance Guideline<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
<td style="width:82.4pt;border:solid windowtext
1.0pt;border-left:none;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt"
valign="top" width="165">
<p class="line874"
style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:center;line-height:106%"
align="center"> <span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Start
time (22:00 UTC)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
<td style="width:79.35pt;border:solid windowtext
1.0pt;border-left:none;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt"
valign="top" width="159">
<p class="line874"
style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:center;line-height:106%"
align="center"> <span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">End
time (22:00 UTC)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="width:229.25pt;border:solid windowtext
1.0pt;border-top:none;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt"
valign="top" width="459">
<p class="line874"
style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:106%"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Discussion
(7 to 14 calendar days)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
<td
style="width:82.4pt;border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:solid
windowtext 1.0pt;border-right:solid windowtext
1.0pt;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" valign="top" width="165">
<p class="line874"
style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:center;line-height:106%"
align="center"> <span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">2017-02-22<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
<td
style="width:79.35pt;border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:solid
windowtext 1.0pt;border-right:solid windowtext
1.0pt;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" valign="top" width="159">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="text-align:center;line-height:106%" align="center"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">2017-03-01<br>
</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="width:229.25pt;border:solid windowtext
1.0pt;border-top:none;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt"
valign="top" width="459">
<p class="line874"
style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:106%"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Vote
for approval (7 calendar days)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
<td
style="width:82.4pt;border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:solid
windowtext 1.0pt;border-right:solid windowtext
1.0pt;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" valign="top" width="165">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="text-align:center;line-height:106%" align="center"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">2017-03-01<br>
</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
<td
style="width:79.35pt;border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:solid
windowtext 1.0pt;border-right:solid windowtext
1.0pt;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" valign="top" width="159">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="text-align:center;line-height:106%" align="center"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">2017-03-08<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="width:229.25pt;border:solid windowtext
1.0pt;border-top:none;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt"
valign="top" width="459">
<p class="line874"
style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:106%"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">If
vote approves ballot: Review Period (Chair to send
Review Notice) (30 calendar days). <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="line874"
style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:106%"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">If
Exclusion Notice(s) filed, ballot approval is rescinded
and PAG to be created.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="line874"
style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:106%"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">If
no Exclusion Notices filed, ballot becomes effective at
end of Review Period.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
<td
style="width:82.4pt;border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:solid
windowtext 1.0pt;border-right:solid windowtext
1.0pt;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" valign="top" width="165">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="text-align:center;line-height:106%" align="center"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Upon
filing of Review Notice by Chair</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
<td
style="width:79.35pt;border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:solid
windowtext 1.0pt;border-right:solid windowtext
1.0pt;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" valign="top" width="159">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="text-align:center;line-height:106%" align="center"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">30 days
after filing of Review Notice by Chair<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="line874" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="line874" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">From
Section 2.3 of the Bylaws: <span style="color:#262626">If the
Draft Guideline Ballot is proposing a Final Maintenance
Guideline, such ballot will include a redline or comparison
showing the set of changes from the Final Guideline section(s)
intended to become a Final Maintenance Guideline, and need not
include a copy of the full set of guidelines. Such redline or
comparison shall be made against the Final Guideline
section(s) as they exist at the time a ballot is proposed, and
need not take into consideration other ballots that may be
proposed subsequently, except as provided in Section 2.3(j) of
the Bylaws.</span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="line874" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="line862" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Votes
must be cast by posting an on-list reply to this thread on the
Public Mail List. A vote in favor of the motion must indicate a
clear “yes” in the response. A vote against must indicate a
clear “no” in the response. A vote to abstain must indicate a
clear “abstain” in the response. Unclear responses will not be
counted. The latest vote received from any representative of a
voting member before the close of the voting period will be
counted. Voting members are listed here: </span><a
href="https://cabforum.org/members/"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">https://cabforum.org/members/</span></a><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">In order for
the motion to be adopted, two thirds (2/3) or more of the votes
cast by members in the CA category and greater than 50% of the
votes cast by members in the browser category must vote “yes”.
<span style="background:white">Quorum is shown on CA/Browser
Forum wiki. </span></span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;background:white">Under
Section 2.2(g) of the Bylaws, at least the required quorum
number of voting members must participate in the ballot for the
ballot to be valid, either by voting in favor, voting against,
or abstaining.</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</body>
</html>