<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:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",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;}
span.gmail-
{mso-style-name:gmail-;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.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"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">I second the opinion that clientAuth and S/Mime are likely to have a great overlap in validation requirements at least when issuing to persons and PKIs may want
to issue both types of certs from the same CA if they are for the same validated individual..<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></a></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> Public [mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Ryan Sleevi via Public<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, May 18, 2018 9:18 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Dimitris Zacharopoulos <jimmy@it.auth.gr>; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public@cabforum.org><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [cabfpub] For Discussion: S/MIME Working Group Charter<o:p></o:p></span></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 Fri, May 18, 2018 at 12:57 AM, Dimitris Zacharopoulos 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>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span class="gmail-"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 18/5/2018 2:51 πμ, Ryan Sleevi via Public wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I don't think it's a cross-EKU situation, though, but I'm glad we're in agreement.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">An email server certificate is an id-kp-serverAuth EKU. That's already covered by another WG<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
I sincerely hope that id-kp-clientAuth EKU will also be covered by this WG since there will be common validation requirements for Subject information, as with S/MIME. It seems too much overhead to spawn an entirely different WG to deal just with clientAuth.<br>
<br>
If people agree, how about using the name "Client and S/MIME Certificate WG" which seems aligned with the "Server Certificate WG"?<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">As I've mentioned several times, it would be good to actually focus on a constrained, defined problem, before you proverbially try to boil the ocean.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">It is not obvious that there will be common validation requirements, because the id-kp-clientAuth situation has a vast dimension of possible uses and spectrum. It's not actually reflective of the deployed reality that the validation requirements
are the same. It also is based on an entirely separate notion of identity.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">So no, I don't agree, because they really are substantially different in deployed reality - and an S/MIME WG is, in itself, a sizable undertaking just to get S/MIME BRs, due to the broad spectrum of client capabilities and CA past-practices
- and the lifetime of extant certificates that presents unique challenges to defining a sensible and realistic profile.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">A good charter - one that leads to productive engagement from a broad set of participants while actually delivering meaningful improvements - is one that keeps itself narrowly focused on the task at hand, produces results, and then looks
to recharter based on the things you knew were out there, but agreed not to discuss until you actually completed the work. That allows you to keep momentum, focus, and participation. Just look at the challenges each of our (legacy) WG has faced with a broad
remit, in that the set of topics has made it difficult both to engage participation of the broader Forum and to actually make forward progress, because it's constantly having to deal with 'all these things' or trying to do 'all these things'.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">When we see narrowly focused ballots and efforts that try to solve a specific set of problems, then we make progress. The validation WG's effort at 3.2.2.4 is a prime example of that - a prolonged effort that directly benefited from being
focused on that problem, and ruling some things (like 3.2.2.5) out of scope of the discussion in order to make progress on the narrow set.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">The same too is in the charter. Let's not try to encompass pet marketing projects (EV for S/MIME), "things we might need but we don't know why" (network security), or "things that are kinda related, but only in some domains" (id-kp-clientAuth).
Let's focus on the problem at hand - S/MIME authentication - keeping the WG scoped narrowly and on task, and deliver something that can help users have faith in the Web PKI to deliver tangible benefits in that space, rather than the reality we have today.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
NOTICE: Protiviti is a global consulting and internal audit firm composed of experts specializing in risk and advisory services. Protiviti is not licensed or registered as a public accounting firm and does not issue opinions on financial statements or offer
attestation services. This electronic mail message is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This message, together with any attachment, may contain confidential and privileged information. Any views, opinions or conclusions
expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and do not necessarily reflect the views of Protiviti Inc. or its affiliates. Any unauthorized review, use, printing, copying, retention, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you
have received this message in error, please immediately advise the sender by reply email message to the sender and delete all copies of this message. Thank you.
</body>
</html>