<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 15 (filtered medium)"><!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><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:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-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.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.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><a name="_MailEndCompose">One thing that hasn’t been discussed is the use of the OCSP no-check extension.<o:p></o:p></a></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:2.0pt'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'><b><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#0174C3'>Ben Wilson, JD, CISA, CISSP<o:p></o:p></span></b></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:2.0pt'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#686869'>VP Compliance<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:2.0pt'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#686869'>+1 801 701 9678<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'><img width=133 height=29 style='width:1.3875in;height:.3in' id="Picture_x0020_1" src="cid:image001.jpg@01D2C99E.218A1940"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'></span><p class=MsoNormal><b>From:</b> Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi@google.com] <br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, May 10, 2017 2:58 PM<br><b>To:</b> CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public@cabforum.org><br><b>Cc:</b> Ben Wilson <ben.wilson@digicert.com><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [cabfpub] Profiling OCSP & CRLs<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>I'm not trying to disagree here, but I'm trying to find out how we can best specify reasonable expectations.<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>That is, there's a lot - a *lot* - that can go wrong with 1 year OCSP responders/CRLs. So if we're going to allow them, we need CAs to think about the technical risks and make proactive suggestions on how best to codify that. Because just a blanket "1 year responder" can go very wrong<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 4:40 PM, Ben Wilson via Public <<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org" target="_blank">public@cabforum.org</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><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'><a name="m_7850171928828818567__MailEndCompose">I agree that a one-year validity for OCSP Responders / CRLs is a reasonable timeframe for off-line CAs. </a><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><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:2.0pt'><b><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#0174C3'>Ben Wilson, JD, CISA, CISSP</span></b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:2.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#686869'>VP Compliance</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:2.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#686869'><a href="tel:(801)%20701-9678" target="_blank">+1 801 701 9678</a></span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><img border=0 width=133 height=29 style='width:1.3833in;height:.3041in' id="m_7850171928828818567Picture_x0020_1" src="cid:image004.jpg@01D2C99E.218A1940"><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><b>From:</b> Public [mailto:<a href="mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org" target="_blank">public-bounces@cabforum.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Doug Beattie via Public<br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, May 10, 2017 11:15 AM<br><b>To:</b> CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org" target="_blank">public@cabforum.org</a>><br><b>Cc:</b> Doug Beattie <<a href="mailto:doug.beattie@globalsign.com" target="_blank">doug.beattie@globalsign.com</a>><o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [cabfpub] Profiling OCSP & CRLs<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><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'><span style='color:#1F497D'>There are CAs that are kept off-line other than roots, so perhaps the requirement should apply to all “off-line” CAs, assuming we can come to agreement on what that means.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'>Doug</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></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 style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><b>From:</b> Public [<a href="mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org" target="_blank">mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Peter Bowen via Public<br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, May 10, 2017 1:09 PM<br><b>To:</b> CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org" target="_blank">public@cabforum.org</a>><br><b>Cc:</b> Peter Bowen <<a href="mailto:pzb@amzn.com" target="_blank">pzb@amzn.com</a>><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [cabfpub] Profiling OCSP & CRLs<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Ryan,<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><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='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>This seems reasonable when you are dealing with an online CA. When you are dealing with a root CA, it is currently reasonable to only bring it online once a year to update the CRL, as that is the required frequency. For many offline CAs it is quite a production to use the HSM, so I think the maximum duration of delegated responder certificates signed by root CAs should be at least a year.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><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='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Thanks,<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Peter<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>On May 8, 2017, at 4:51 PM, Ryan Sleevi via Public <<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org" target="_blank">public@cabforum.org</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><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='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>I think 30 days is what we should target as the upper-bound, so would that be suggesting that we should target 15 days as a SHOULD with 30 as a MUST?<o:p></o:p></p><div><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='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Or were you suggesting 30 as a SHOULD, 45 as a MUST, which in practice means... well, 45? :)<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 12:57 PM, Curt Spann <<a href="mailto:cspann@apple.com" target="_blank">cspann@apple.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Hi Ryan,<o:p></o:p></p><div><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='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Regarding delegated OCSP responder certificate validity, if 30 days is a desired goal (or a similar timeframe), I would recommend 45 days to allow the renewal to occur every 30 days, with a 15 day buffer for operational issues. Basically, for whatever target validity period we should add some buffer time.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><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='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Cheers,<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Curt<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>On Apr 25, 2017, at 4:53 PM, Ryan Sleevi via Public <<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org" target="_blank">public@cabforum.org</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Hi folks,<o:p></o:p></p><div><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='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>In response to various investigations about OCSP performance, operation, and trying to figure out how we can move to a world of more ubiquitous OCSP stapling, one of the things that comes up is that OCSP responses are very much like the pre-BR wild-west of certificates.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><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='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>I've tried to capture a starting point for discussion at <a href="https://github.com/sleevi/cabforum-docs/pull/2/files?diff=split" target="_blank">https://github.com/sleevi/cabforum-docs/pull/2/files?diff=split</a> . I've tried to annotate the changes, and the reason for the changes, so that people can understand them, their goals, and the implications.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><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='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>While I'd like to get this to the point of a Ballot, it's not quite there yet. In particular, it doesn't state Effective Dates, because I want to get a sense of the challenges that each bit may pose :)<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><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='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>If people find this approach useful, I'd like to also reform the CRL profile in a similar fashion.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><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='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>There's also a lot of ways to express these requirements. I considered using a table approach, which I suspect some of our ETSI-audited CA members will be familiar with, and which I find useful, but I thought it best to keep the initial discussions simple and textual, and then we can make it pretty once we're happy with the substance.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>_______________________________________________<br>Public mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Public@cabforum.org" target="_blank">Public@cabforum.org</a><br><a href="https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public" target="_blank">https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public</a><o:p></o:p></p></div></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>_______________________________________________<br>Public mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Public@cabforum.org" target="_blank">Public@cabforum.org</a><br><a href="https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public" target="_blank">https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public</a><o:p></o:p></p></div></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></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" target="_blank">https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public</a><o:p></o:p></p></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></body></html>