<html 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;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
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></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>I agree with the goal of getting this information out there, and using the CAB Forum this way seems in scope. Per the bylaws: “<span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>Members of the CA/Browser Forum have worked closely together in defining the guidelines and means of implementation for best practices as a way of providing a heightened security for Internet transactions and creating a more intuitive method of displaying secure sites to Internet users.” (Section 1)</span><b><span lang=EN style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>However, I’m struggling to see why the CAB Forum would want to collect this info as a requirement rather than allowing CAs to submit the information voluntarily when there are questions. Usually, we require the location of the disclosure be set in the CPS/CP, not as an email to the CAB Forum. Shouldn’t we follow that format here? <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> Wednesday, September 13, 2017 12:28 PM<br><b>To:</b> Jeremy Rowley <jeremy.rowley@digicert.com><br><b>Cc:</b> CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public@cabforum.org><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 213 - Revocation Timeline Extension<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, Sep 13, 2017 at 2:14 PM, Jeremy Rowley <<a href="mailto:jeremy.rowley@digicert.com" target="_blank">jeremy.rowley@digicert.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-right:0in'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>If we’re trying to require transparency, I’d rather see a requirement to publish all certificate problem reports within 24 hours, regardless of resolution. First, this accomplishes the goal in a more straight-forward manner. Second, publication separates the transparency goal from the resolution timeline frames. <o:p></o:p></p><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'>24 hours to publish<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>24-7 days to investigate/fix<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>24-7 days to revoke<o:p></o:p></p><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'>The other question is where should these be published. The CAB Forum questions list seems like the wrong place. The CAB Forum isn’t the mis-issuance police (the browsers are). The questions list in particular is intended for third party questions about the CAB Forum requirements. The Mozilla dev list is a better place to publish. If that’s the case, wouldn’t a publication of certificate problem reports be better presented as a Mozilla root store requirement?<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>I think that's conflating publication with response, and I think it presupposes that response only originates from the root program side.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Note I didn't suggest the goal of transparency was to facilitate the misissuance police - it was to promote information sharing and disclosure to allow improved policies, practices, and guidelines. And that very much seems a CA/B Forum activity. Whether or not there is (separately) a conversation about misissuance does seem like something for policy enforcement and not necessarily the remit of the CA/B Forum.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></body></html>