<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)"><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.EmailStyle18
{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>Not hearing from any other CAs, should we state that the CA must make an initial determination and report within 24 hours and a final report in accordance with the other timeline? <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><a name="_MailEndCompose"><o:p> </o:p></a></p><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'></span><p class=MsoNormal><b>From:</b> Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi@google.com] <br><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, August 24, 2017 9:18 AM<br><b>To:</b> Jeremy Rowley <jeremy.rowley@digicert.com>; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public@cabforum.org><br><b>Cc:</b> Gervase Markham <gerv@mozilla.org><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [cabfpub] Revocation ballot v2<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 11:32 PM, Jeremy Rowley 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'><p class=MsoNormal>Okay - attached.<br><br>a) I added the requirement to maintain an email address for addressing certificate problem reports to 4.9.3<br>b) I added a 24 hour rule for when the original certificate request was not authorized.<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Jeremy,<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>I'm wondering if you could speak more to what sort of challenges CAs face in making a determination within 24 hours, versus seven days. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>For example, consider a report of a CP/CPS non-compliance - which is something entirely under the CA's control - particularly for something like a profile violation (e.g. extensions when they said they wouldn't have them, missing subject naming fields, wrong policies, etc). Why wouldn't a CA be able to make a determination about compliance within 24 hours? One downside is I could see the added time for investigation adding an incentive to delay investigating (in order to delay revocation), rather than purely granting the flexibility necessary for complex situations.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>I think if you (or others) could share a bit more about the challenges of investigating reports, since I think, ideally, we'd want all reports to be taken with the same gravity and attentiveness as a potential security issue. I ask this, because I'm wondering whether it makes sense to set the standard of the _final_ report at 24 hours, but then allow CAs to take up to 7 days (except for the types of reports you noted) as an exception, and with an added requirement to disclose why they made use of the additional time.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>That is, let's say someone gets report of a CP/CPS violation, and the CA determines that the current BR language is unclear, and they need additional time to consult with their auditors and/or the broader community. That seems a perfectly reasonable reason to take up to the 7 days - to make sure the violation is certain - but it also means we may not know of the potential confusion in the language, or the auditors' conclusions, as a community. If we have those types of situations disclosed (through, say, a public mail posting explaining why the >24 hour investigation took place, and what the challenges were), we can, as a community, better address those situations and work on improvements.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>I'm wondering if that might address your concern about "two weeks", while also help the community better understand the challenges so we can work to improve them (in the case they're ambiguities) or collaboratively share best practices (in the case of other factors)<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></body></html>