<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<font face="Cambria">All three (clentAuth and S/MIME) use scenarios
are </font><font face="Cambria">essentially different.<br>
<br>
Validation requirements for issuing signing/encryption
certificates are mostly similar, clientAuth (as we understand it
under eIDAS*) is different.<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
M.D. <br>
<br>
* Article 3<br>
(5) ‘<i><b>authentication</b>’ means an electronic process that
enables the electronic identification of a natural or legal
person, or the origin and integrity of data in electronic form
to be confirmed</i>.<br>
<br>
(1) ‘<i><b>electronic identification</b>’ means the process of
using person identification data in electronic form uniquely
representing either a natural or legal person, or a natural
person representing a legal person</i>.<br>
<br>
(2) ‘<i><b>electronic identification means</b>’ means a material
and/or immaterial unit containing person identification data and
which is used for authentication for an online service</i>.<br>
<br>
</font><br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 5/24/2018 12:16 AM, Brown, Wendy
(10421) via Public wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:BN6PR03MB304450C8EAF8EB178305B171EE6B0@BN6PR03MB3044.namprd03.prod.outlook.com">
<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]-->
<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"
moz-do-not-send="true"><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 [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org">mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org</a>]
<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 <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:jimmy@it.auth.gr"><jimmy@it.auth.gr></a>;
CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:public@cabforum.org"><public@cabforum.org></a><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"
moz-do-not-send="true">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.
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Public@cabforum.org">Public@cabforum.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public">https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>