<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><font face="Calibri">Yes, that's what I also had in mind.</font><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Il 08/06/2018 15:28, Ryan Sleevi ha
scritto:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CACvaWvYib_cR+Q1iDL8Js0mPt5N7=JdyBcm4MryqBuHMmgGwbw@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">Certainly not trying to fight :) I'm assuming I'm
missing something, so just trying to make sure I understand the
concerns to see how best to address them.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>How I'm thinking a CA "would" do this, in a way that makes
it clear to relying parties, is that 1.4.1 / 1.4.2 would
dictate the acceptable/unacceptable uses, 4.9.1.1 would (in
order to maintain consistency with the BRs) specifically
enumerate each and every one of the items in the BRs,
verbatim.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Then, a CA could add additional reasons for revocation
(e.g. 4.9.1.1 (16) "The owner of the CA wakes up on the wrong
side of the bed that morning"), while the method that the BRs
require that they MUST have - that is, 4.9.1.1 (4), would
consistently refer to the definitions in 1.4.1 / 1.4.2 for all
CAs.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I think we're actually in quite good agreement that CAs
should be able to dictate why they revoke, along with
expecting subscribers be prepared for that, but similarly, we
want to make sure that CAs enumerate all 14 methods listed in
the BRs 4.9.1.1, and to be able to do that for 4.9.1.1 (4), we
need to define what that means consistently :)</div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 9:24 AM,
Adriano Santoni <span dir="ltr"><<a
href="mailto:adriano.santoni@staff.aruba.it"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">adriano.santoni@staff.aruba.it</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><font face="Calibri">Well, §4.9 of the CPS is about
certificate revocation, and here we are discussing
about whether and when a CA reserves the right to
revoke a "misused" certificate, whatever "misused"
means (to a particular CA). So it seems to me that
§4.9 - and particularly §4.9.1 (circumstances for
revocation) - can be a suitable location in the
CPS where to define "misuse". But I appreciate
that §1.4 is also an appropriate place. At any
rate, I am not going to fight over this.</font><br>
</p>
<div>
<div class="h5"> <br>
<div class="m_-3658318345786821292moz-cite-prefix">Il
08/06/2018 14:51, Ryan Sleevi ha scritto:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">I'm not sure - can you explain
why you think putting it in 4.9 would be
consistent with 3647?
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I think the goal is to have a consistent
place that all Subscribers and Relying
Parties can expect things. 3647 provides for
that in Section 1.4. I'm not sure why we'd
want to permit and/or - that seems like it
creates more work for everyone?</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jun 8, 2018
at 8:07 AM, Adriano Santoni <span dir="ltr"><<a
href="mailto:adriano.santoni@staff.aruba.it" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">adriano.santoni@staff.aruba.<wbr>it</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px
#ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><font face="Calibri">More explicitly,
with reference to RFC 3647, I'd
suggest that a description of what
the CA means by "misuse" (or an
equivalent term or expression)
should be found in §1.4 and/or §4.9
of the CA's CPS.</font><br>
</p>
<div>
<div class="m_-3658318345786821292h5">
<br>
<div
class="m_-3658318345786821292m_2117719529880221145moz-cite-prefix">Il
08/06/2018 13:52, Ryan Sleevi ha
scritto:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Could you expand a
bit more?
<div><br>
</div>
<div>One of the concerns raised
by multiple browsers, but
particularly articulated by
Wayne, was that CAs are
documenting things all over,
and so it's difficult for
consumers to know where it
will be documented. Do you
currently document it, and in
a different section?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>It was an explicit goal of
Ballot 217 to ensure that CAs
are following the 3647 format,
and as Moudrick highlighted,
that's already got a dedicated
section for that purpose. If
you did want to place
information in additional
places, that's certainly
possible - but it means your
example 1.4.2 would say
something like</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>"Certificates issued under
this policy shall not be used
for hazardous environments
requiring fail-safe controls,
including without limitation,
the design, construction,
maintenance or operation of
nuclear facilities, aircraft
navigation or communication
systems, air traffic control,
and life support or weapons
systems. Further, certificates
issued under this policy may
not be used for the purposes
defined in Appendix A"</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Does that sound...
reasonable?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Fri,
Jun 8, 2018 at 7:37 AM,
Adriano Santoni <span
dir="ltr"><<a
href="mailto:adriano.santoni@staff.aruba.it"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">adriano.santoni@staff.aruba.i<wbr>t</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote
class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc
solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000"
bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><font face="Calibri">I'd
prefer not to restrict
the sections of the
CA's CP/CPS where the
definition of "misuse"
(or "misused") is to
be found:</font></p>
<p>4.9.1.1 (future)<br>
"4. The CA obtains
evidence that the
Certificate was misused,
as defined by the CA's
CP/CPS;"<br>
</p>
<span> <br>
<br>
<div
class="m_-3658318345786821292m_2117719529880221145m_-1831669406125017777moz-cite-prefix">Il
08/06/2018 12:54, Ryan
Sleevi ha scritto:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>4.9.1.1 (future)</div>
<div>"4. The CA
obtains evidence
that the Certificate
was misused, as
defined by Section
1.4.1 and 1.4.2 of
the CA's CP/CPS;"</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</span></div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>