<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">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">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">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>