<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 14/5/2024 6:36 μ.μ., Inigo Barreira
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:DM4PR17MB6160DB5D5DB35AD5075573F281E32@DM4PR17MB6160.namprd17.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-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;}@font-face
{font-family:Aptos;}p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}span.EstiloCorreo19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;
mso-ligatures:none;}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:"Aptos",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US">I don´t have any issue to discuss this at the
forum plenary but the main difference between the TLS and
the other cert types is the accountability these have
because being in the CT logs and anyone can check/review.
But, go ahead.</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
CT is not in the TLS BRs so they are not so much related. I also
don't understand what you mean by "accountability" because all CAs
are accountable for all types of publicly-trusted certificates they
issue (TLS, Code Signing, S/MIME), and they all have -similar- rules
for revocation.<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
Dimitris.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:DM4PR17MB6160DB5D5DB35AD5075573F281E32@DM4PR17MB6160.namprd17.prod.outlook.com">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div
style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">De:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">
Public <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org"><public-bounces@cabforum.org></a> <b>En nombre
de </b>Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) via Public<br>
<b>Enviado el:</b> martes, 14 de mayo de 2024 17:28<br>
<b>Para:</b> Ben Wilson <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:bwilson@mozilla.com"><bwilson@mozilla.com></a><br>
<b>CC:</b> CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:public@cabforum.org"><public@cabforum.org></a><br>
<b>Asunto:</b> Re: [cabfpub] Bergamo F2F Agenda Item<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div
style="border:solid black 1.0pt;padding:2.0pt 2.0pt 2.0pt 2.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="line-height:12.0pt;background:#FAFA03"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">CAUTION:
This email originated from outside of the organization. Do
not click links or open attachments unless you recognize
the sender and know the content is safe.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 14/5/2024 6:08 μ.μ., Ben Wilson
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi Dimitris, <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">There appears to be an open slot on
the F2F agenda - Wed. May 29th at 9:05 a.m. I was
thinking we could use that time to discuss revocation
timelines and balancing the security provided by
revocation with the security/stability needed to
support critical infrastructure. In other words, we
could discuss BR section 4.9.1 and concerns about
disruption of global/national operations in
banking/finance, transportation, government,
telecommunications, healthcare, and other key areas
where certificate revocation might cause key systems
to fail.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Should I put this topic in that
open slot on the wiki?<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thanks,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Ben<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
Hi Ben,<br>
<br>
I think that would be great. I assume you will be leading
this session.<br>
<br>
I think it's a great opportunity for CAs with past
experience on delayed revocations to share some insight
about specific challenges in the sectors you listed, and
possibly add some that are missing.<br>
<br>
FYI, public evidence for delayed revocation incidents (open
and closed, based on specific tags) is available in <a
href="https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbugzilla.mozilla.org%2Fbuglist.cgi%3Ff1%3DOP%26f4%3DCP%26v2%3Dca-compliance%26f2%3Dstatus_whiteboard%26o2%3Dallwordssubstr%26component%3DCA%2520Certificate%2520Compliance%26query_format%3Dadvanced%26list_id%3D17029100%26bug_status%3DNEW%26bug_status%3DASSIGNED%26bug_status%3DREOPENED%26bug_status%3DRESOLVED%26v3%3Ddelayed-revocation%2520leaf-revocation-delay%26resolution%3D---%26resolution%3DFIXED%26resolution%3DINVALID%26resolution%3DWONTFIX%26resolution%3DDUPLICATE%26resolution%3DWORKSFORME%26o3%3Danywordssubstr%26f3%3Dstatus_whiteboard&data=05%7C02%7Cinigo.barreira%40sectigo.com%7C359a894ee455450d700308dc742a7c05%7C0e9c48946caa465d96604b6968b49fb7%7C0%7C0%7C638512973035813492%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ksZzBYz0sq06L0qwEvCZcdOe3UTCuUO5%2F4m8sn%2FIZgw%3D&reserved=0"
moz-do-not-send="true">this link</a>.<br>
<br>
Although you mentioned that this affects the BR section
4.9.1, this topic affects all Working Groups because all the
WG BRs have a section 4.9.1 that is pretty much similar with
the TLS BRs. With that said, I would like to ask if Members
have any objections for discussing this topic as part of the
Forum plenary.<br>
<br>
<br>
Thank you,<br>
Dimitris<br>
CA/B Forum Chair<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>